Latest news with #Ameri
The Hill
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Khanna planning to subpoena Epstein estate for ‘birthday book'
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he plans to subpoena the estate of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for the so-called 'birthday book' that reportedly includes letters from high-profile individuals including President Trump. Khanna joined MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' on Wednesday after an interview with Bradley Edwards, a lawyer for hundreds of Epstein's victims. Edwards revealed in the interview that Epstein's so-called book — on which the Wall Street Journal first reported and which President Trump denies having written a note for — is in the possession of the Epstein estate. Edwards encouraged Congress to move to subpoena the estate to get possession of the book. Khanna, the Democrat who has co-led a bipartisan effort calling for the Justice Department to release files on Epstein, said he didn't know the book was in the possession of the estate and indicated he plans to move forward with issuing a subpoena. 'It is a revelation to me that he said that that birthday book is with private lawyers in the Epstein estate,' Khanna said in the interview, describing Edwards's comments as a 'bombshell revelation.' Khanna noted that the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on Wednesday approved several subpoenas, including one directing the Justice Department to turn over materials relating to the Epstein files. Several Republicans joined Democrats in approving the measure. But Khanna said he wasn't confident the subpoena would yield results. 'We subpoenaed the Epstein files, but that's a hard thing to do to get the Department of Justice to cooperate in releasing those files,' Khanna said. 'What's not hard to do is to subpoena private attorneys in a private estate and to get compliance.' 'We can't trust the Trump Justice Department. That is going to get slowed down. It's going to be get bogged down. Even if we subpoena, they can try to defy the subpoena. I don't trust the DOJ to prosecute themselves for contempt of Congress,' he continued. 'But what we can do through Congress is go after these Jeffrey Epstein estate, and we've seen even Republicans are willing to vote with us on that,' Khanna added. 'This may be the cleanest way forward.' Khanna said he plans to invite Edwards to meet with the Oversight Committee to discuss the issue further, adding, 'And I think we can easily move forward on this subpoena of that 'birthday book,' which could really advance this case.' Trump sued the Journal for defamation on Friday after the newspaper published a story detailing an alleged letter the president sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. According to the Journal, the 2003 letter allegedly includes several lines of text 'framed by the outline of a naked woman.' It allegedly ends: 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denies writing the letter. 'This lawsuit is filed not only on behalf of your favorite President, ME, but also in order to continue standing up for ALL Americans who will no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media,' Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. Khanna on Wednesday said issuing a subpoena for the 'birthday book' will reveal whether the letter exists. 'We will know if the letter the Wall Street Journal reported on, if that is in the book or not, or if there are any other letters or correspondence of Donald Trump in the book. We also will know whether hundreds of other people who have been implicated in sex trafficking are in the book,' Khanna said. 'And of course, we would take absolute care to make sure the victims are protected,' he added.
Qatar Tribune
17-07-2025
- Business
- Qatar Tribune
US retail sales bounce around in whipsaw trade environment
Agencies Consumers picked up their spending in June after an earlier pullback, despite anxiety over tariffs and the state of the U.S. economy. Retail sales rose a better-than-expected 0.6% in June, the Commerce Department said Thursday, after two consecutive months of spending declines, a 0.1% pullback in April and a 0.9% slowdown in May. Earlier in the year, strong retail sales were driven by car sales as Americans attempted to get ahead of President Donald Trump's 25% duty on imported cars and car parts. The erratic spending is taking place during a period of mixed signals about the economy as well. The U.S. economy shrank at a 0.5% annual pace from January through March, but the U.S. job market is proving to be very resilient, and major tariffs keep getting postponed. Americans continue to spend in that environment with a heavy focus on necessities, rather than electronics or new appliances. Yet consumers haven't stopped spending on nonessential goods. Sales at restaurants, the lone services component within the Census Bureau report and a barometer of discretionary spending, rose moderately. 'Consumers are only feeling a modest amount of pressure from tariffs, and any weakness here is not having much of an effect in forcing them to pull back on more discretionary areas of spending such as restaurants and bars,' wrote William Blair's macro analyst Richard de Chazal. Yet Chazal fears that the administration may picking up false assurances from strong consumer spending. Consumer sentiment and markets have tumbled after aggressive tariff announcements. Retail sales in June included a 1.2% gain in sales of autos and auto parts. Spending expanded across most major categories including clothing and personal care. Excluding autos and automotive parts, sales rose 0.5%, according to the Commerce Department Clothing and accessories sales rose 0.9%, while health and personal care sales saw a 0.5% bump. Online retailers recorded a 0.4% gain. Electronics and appliance retailers, furniture stores and department stores all saw sales declines. A category of sales that excludes volatile sectors such as gas, cars, and restaurants rose last month by 0.5% from the previous month. The figure feeds into the Bureau of Economic Analysis's consumption estimate and is sign that consumers are still spending on some discretionary items. Heather Long, the chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that layoffs remain low and consumers are still confident enough that the economy is chugging along. 'Don't count the American consumer out yet,' said Long in a statement. 'There's still a lot of trepidation about tariffs and likely price hikes, but consumers are willing to buy if they feel they can get a good deal. The word of the summer for the economy is resilient.' The retail sales report arrives amid a whipsaw frenzy of on and off again tariffs have that jolted businesses and households. For businesses, that has made it harder to manage supply and inventories. Americans are focusing more on necessities, when they do shop. The latest government report showed that inflation rose last month to its highest level since February as Trump's sweeping tariffs push up the costs of everything from groceries and clothes to furniture and appliances. Consumer prices rose 2.7% in June from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Tuesday, up from an annual increase of 2.4% in May. On a monthly basis, prices climbed 0.3% from May to June, after rising just 0.1% the previous month. Trump insists that the U.S. effectively has no inflation as he has attempted to pressure Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell into reducing short-term interest rates. Yet the new inflation numbers make it more likely that the central bank will leave rates where they are. Powell has said that he wants to measure the economic impact of Trump's tariffs before reducing borrowing costs. Americans have continued to spend, which is what the Fed had hoped to curtail a little bit with rate hikes. One big litmus test was Amazon's four-day Prime event along with competing retail sales from the likes of Walmart and Target that kicked off last week. Adobe Digital Insights, which tracks online sales, reported that the sales events drove $24.1 billion in online spending, a 30.3% increase compared with the same period last year.
Los Angeles Times
26-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
10 years after winning same-sex marriage, Jim Obergefell and his legacy both live on
PUT-IN-BAY, Ohio — Nearly 10 years after he changed the lives of every queer person in America, Jim Obergefell sat in a crowded bar on a small island in Lake Erie, watching the close-knit local community celebrate its third annual Pride. Jim, 58, made history as the lead plaintiff in the landmark legal case Obergefell vs. Hodges, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2015, that same-sex couples nationwide have a constitutional right to marry. The last decade has diminished the familiarity of his face, once everywhere on cable news, and he appeared to sit anonymously now, sipping a beer in a booth. But Jim's legacy still resonates deeply with LGBTQ+ people all over the country, in both red and blue states and in little purplish outposts like Put-in-Bay, too — as Molly Kearney, the queer comedian on stage, would soon make clear. Kearney spent years working at island bars and restaurants before making it big and landing a gig as the first nonbinary cast member of 'Saturday Night Live.' They are something of a legend on the island about three miles off the Ohio coast, and the crowd was loving their set — which was chock full of stories about getting drunk at local watering holes and navigating life and family as a young queer person. Then Kearney brought up Jim's case. The day the Supreme Court issued its decision, Kearney was working at a restaurant called The Forge alongside co-owner Marc Wright, who is gay and one of the organizers of Put-in-Bay Pride. Wright immediately told the LGBTQ+ staff their work day was done. 'I just remember that day so vividly,' Kearney said. 'He's like, 'All right, all the straight people have to work. All the gay people, leave work — we're going out on the town!'' The crowd erupted in laughter and cheers, and in apparent approval for Wright, the emcee who had just introduced Kearney. 'It was awesome,' Kearney said, recalling how the whole town seemed to come together to celebrate. 'It was a magnificent day.' Jim, caught off guard, was also clearly tickled as he quietly took in the many smiling faces around him. A lot of people have told him over the last decade how much his case transformed their lives. Many have cried upon meeting him. Some have said his victory gave them the courage to come out to their families and friends, and even to themselves. One told him she was preparing to take her own life until his win. Still, Kearney's story might be his 'new favorite,' he said. For starters, it was darn funny, he said. But it also was rooted in queer acceptance in a small community not unlike the coastal town a short ferry ride away, Sandusky, Ohio, where Jim grew up — and now lives again. It captured something Jim has observed in his own life the last few years in Ohio, something that might be his greatest legacy, especially in light of recent political efforts to push LGBTQ+ rights backward and queer people back into the closet. Kearney's story captured people in an average, not especially progressive American community not just accepting their queer neighbors and friends — but celebrating their right to love. The night before the comedy show, Jim was in Sandusky, hosting a dinner party in his well-appointed and art-adorned apartment with about a dozen of his closest friends, family and neighbors. He served some of his own wine — he's a co-founder of Equality Vines out of Guerneville — and ordered a bunch of pizza, including a Sandusky special: sausage and sauerkraut. There was his older brother and sister-in-law, Chuck and Janice Obergefell, who recalled traveling to D.C. for the Supreme Court arguments. Their kids are also close to Jim. 'The minute we heard you were going to Washington, we just thought, 'Wow, this is too cool,'' Janice told Jim. 'We're awfully darn proud of you, but you know that.' Chuck had worked his whole life in local plants, and had known a few gay men there — regular blue-collar guys who also happened to be the 'friendliest people I've ever met,' he said. So when Jim came out to him in the early 1990s, it didn't bother him much, though he did worry about HIV/AIDS. 'I just told him, 'You're my brother, I love ya, just be careful,'' Chuck said. 'Then he brought John around,' said Janice, of Jim's late husband John Arthur. 'And I liked John more than Jim!' Chuck said with a wry smile. There were several of Jim's oldest and dearest friends, including Kay Hollek, a friend since they were 4; Judi Nath, a friend since 7th grade; Jennifer Arthur, his 1984 prom date; and Betsy Kay, a friend from high school chorus. There were also newer friends from town, including Marsha Gray Carrington, a photographer and painter whose work adorns Jim's walls, and from Jim's 'gayborhood,' as he called it — including neighbors Dick Ries and Jim Ervin, a married couple who briefly employed Jim as a Sandusky segway tour guide, and Debbie Braun, a retired Los Angeles teacher who, like Jim, decided to move back to her hometown. The conversation ranged freely from Jim's personal legacy to local politics in Sandusky, which is moderate compared to the red rural towns and bigger blue cities nearby. The talk jumped to national politics and recent attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, which have made some of them worry for Jim's safety as 'an icon of a movement,' as his former prom date put it. Ries and Ervin, who started dating about 17 years ago, drew laughs with a story about learning of the Supreme Court decision. Ervin was bawling — tears of joy — when he called Ries, who was driving and immediately thought something horrible had happened. 'I think the house has burned down, he's wrecked the car, the dog is dead,' Ries said with a chuckle. It wasn't until he pulled over that he understood the happy news. The couple had held off having a marriage ceremony because they wanted it to be 'real,' including in the eyes of their home state, Ervin said. After the ruling, they quickly made plans, and married less than 8 months later on Feb. 6, 2016. 'To me, it was profound that once and for all, we could all get married,' Ervin said. The group talked about what kept them in or brought them to Sandusky: family, the low cost of living, small-town friendliness. They talked about the other queer people in their lives, including some of their children. They mentioned how the only gay bar in town recently closed. In between the heavier discussions, they chatted in the warm, cheeky patterns of old friends catching up over pizza and wine. At one point, Jim and several of his girlfriends gathered in the kitchen to discuss — what else? — Jim's dating life. Just the week before, Jim said, he had realized he was 'ready to let go' of John's ashes, to spread them somewhere special as John had requested, and finally ready to date again. 'I'm open,' he said, as his girlfriends' eyes lit up. The case that landed Jim before the Supreme Court started during one of the hardest periods of his life, when John was dying from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease. The couple had been together for decades, and in July 2013, three months before John's death, exchanged vows in Maryland, one of the states that recognized same-sex marriages at the time. However, Ohio refused to acknowledge that marriage, meaning that, when John died, Jim would not be listed as the surviving spouse on his state death certificate. So they sued. For years after John's death and the subsequent court rulings in their favor, Jim kept busy co-writing a book, traveling the country giving speeches and attending Pride events and LGBTQ+ fundraisers as a guest of honor. He was mourning John, too, of course, but amid so many other draws on his focus and attention, he said. 'It's almost like you didn't get to do it right away,' said Betsy. 'You had it delayed.' After living in Cincinnati from 1984 to 2016 — most of that time with John — Jim moved to D.C. for a few years, but 'missed Ohio,' he said. In 2021, as the COVID pandemic raged, he found himself increasingly lonely, he said, so he decided to move back to Sandusky to be closer to family and friends. Since then, he has been happier, rekindling old connections, making some new ones and even running — unsuccessfully — for office. Betsy, a mother of nine — some queer — and a ball of energy, said it's wonderful to have Jim back in town. The one catch, she acknowledged, is the gay dating pool in Sandusky, population about 24,000, is not exactly deep. To make matters worse, Jim is hopelessly oblivious when it comes to flirting, she said. The other women in the kitchen nodded. Taking the cue, Jim went to his bedroom and returned with a small pin Betsy had given him, which read, 'If you're flirting with me, please let me know. And be extremely specific. Seriously, I'm clueless.' Jim looked around his apartment, in his hometown, brimming with fiercely loyal friends and family who not only love him, but want him to find love. Thanks in part to him, it was a scene that lucky, happy queer people might find familiar nationwide. Shortly after Kearney's set at Put-in-Bay Pride, Kristin Vogel-Campbell, a 45-year-old bisexual educator from nearby Port Clinton, approached Jim at his booth. Her friend had just pointed Jim out — told her who he was — and she just had to thank him. 'You've done so much for our community,' she said. 'You put yourself out there, and did the work that was needed to get the job done.' Jim, not anonymous after all, smiled and thanked her. A few moments later, Kearney came through the crowd, high-fiving and hugging old friends. When they, too, were told who Jim was, their jaw dropped. 'Are you serious? ... Hold on.' Kearney ran over and grabbed Wright out of another conversation and explained who Jim was. Wright's eyes went wide — then he reached out and touched Jim on the chest, as if to verify he was real. Kearney, sticking their arms out to show goosebumps, said, 'I have the chillies.' Kearney doesn't often include the story of the Supreme Court ruling in their sets, they said, but thought the local crowd would get a kick out of it, because they knew that day had meant a lot to so many people. 'That day — thanks to you — was a very big day for me,' Kearney told Jim. 'I didn't feel fully comfortable — I still don't — so that day was really important, because everyone was, like, cheering!' Wright nodded along. He first came to Put-in-Bay from Cleveland when he was 21 — or a 'baby gay,' as he put it. And initially, it was intimidating. 'It's easy to feel like an outcast in a small community, because you're living in a fish bowl,' he said. Soon enough, however, the town made him one of their own. People on the island 'knew I was gay before I knew, and everyone was like, 'Yeah, it's OK,'' Wright said. He said such acceptance, which has only grown on the island since, is thanks to pioneers like Jim — and like Kearney, whose own success has increased understanding of nonbinary people. 'Just to have Molly go out and live their life so unapologetically, it's so validating,' Wright said. Introducing Kearney that afternoon, Wright had thanked the crowd — many of them locals — for proving that Put-in-Bay stands for love and equality, especially at such a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community. 'Put-in-Bay is for everyone — one island, one family,' he said. Now, as Jim praised the event, saying it was just the sort of thing that's needed in small towns all across the country, Wright beamed.
Time of India
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?
As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
To survive, public broadcasting must change. Here's how.
Are NPR and PBS doomed? Despite the Trump administration's sound, fury and executive orders aimed at cutting off federal funding for public media, 'defunding' is not a sure thing. It is far from clear that President Trump's May 1 executive order 'ending taxpayer subsidization of biased media' will survive legal challenge. It instructs a legally independent nonprofit organization, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as to what it must do. Nor is it clear that another means toward that end — firing many of the current CPB board members — will survive its own legal challenge. The real test for the most serious effort to defund public media since its creation in 1967 has come in Congress. The House last week passed the White House's $9.48 billion spending rescission package, including its request to claw back $1.1 billion funds that Congress has already appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes those funds to NPR, PBS and local stations. Federal public media funding will survive only if the Senate doesn't go along. For that to happen, PBS and especially NPR — which stirs the greatest animosity — must change their strategy. Its self-righteous defense of the status quo must shift quickly toward an acknowledgment of shortcomings, along with compromise alternative approaches for public media funding rules — including one already found in the president's executive order. As with any major vote in the current Congress, a handful of individual votes can make the difference. So will the rules of the vote. The up-or-down vote in the House made it difficult even for Republican moderates not to support recission. In the Senate, however, the rules could permit individual votes on each element of recission package — meaning each senator would be on record. Many senators are fond of their local public media stations, which often serve as the only source of local journalism. Politicians like to be on local talk shows and to have their press releases get attention. But Republican moderates will need good reason to resist White House pressure — and that will require change at NPR and PBS. To date, public media leaders have simply dug in. NPR President Katherine Maher, for instance, in response to the executive order, stated that 'NPR is a non-partisan news organization that adheres to and upholds the highest standards of public service in journalism.' She may well believe that — but there has to be some reason that a 2012 Pew Research Foundation survey found that only 17 percent of NPR listeners were Republicans. In a polarized country, NPR and the PBS News Hour are too often comfort food for progressives — just as Fox News is for conservatives. But Fox is not subsidized by taxpayers. To survive the defunding effort, NPR and PBS must do more than cling to Big Bird, now flying thanks to Netflix. They should rather acknowledge that, especially in their public affairs programming, they are not serving a broad cross-section of Americans, either geographically or culturally. Moreover, NPR and PBS should recognize that, even in Trump's seemingly draconian executive defunding order, there is a section that suggests compromise. The order includes detailed instructions regarding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's $267 million in 'community service grants' to local stations and which, as the order notes, provide 'indirect' NPR and PBS funding when used to purchase national programming. The White House wants that to end. The public media bodies should agree to support amending the Public Broadcasting Act to allow local stations to keep their grants and not be required to pay dues or programming fees to NPR or PBS. Instead, they should use the funding as seed money for something 'underserved' markets desperately need — local journalism. The White House notes correctly that the media world has changed dramatically since the Public Broadcasting Act was passed in 1967 — but one market failure has been the emergence of news deserts, thanks to the closures of thousands of local newspapers. At its best, NPR local journalism — in St. Louis, Akron, Dallas, Chicago and elsewhere — is filling that void. For their part, NPR and PBS should commit to raising their own funds privately, while still making use of local reporting produced by affiliate stations. What's more, they should commit to diversifying their funding sources. Progressive foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller and MacArthur have used generous funding to influence which stories get covered. NPR and PBS should also report annually to Congress about the source of their funds — where donors live — and their ratings in all states and metro areas. Their goal must be to reach a broader audience in order to make their case for continued funding. A stick Congress could wield is the potential to revoke their tax-exempt status. But to start, public media has to acknowledge it has a problem with perceived bias to succeed in what is now an uphill fight to survive. To do so, it must admit its shortcomings and offer specifics about how it will change. Howard Husock served as a Republican member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors from 2013 to 2017. His films for WGBH-TV, Boston won national and New England Emmy Awards.
