Future of Freedom: Should the Federal Government Fund Public Broadcasting?

Podcast Information:

• Title: Future of Freedom
• Host: Scott Bertram
• Guests: Brian Rankin (Competitive Enterprise Institute) & Howard Husick (American Enterprise Institute)
• Release Date: April 3, 2025
• Description: This episode delves into the debate over federal funding for public broadcasting, featuring contrasting perspectives from two distinguished fellows. The discussion navigates the implications of taxpayer support for NPR and PBS, exploring issues of bias, funding models, and the future of public media in an evolving landscape.

Introduction to the Debate

[00:08] Scott Bertram:
Scott opens the episode by introducing the central topic: the debate over eliminating federal funding for public broadcasting. He sets the stage for an engaging discussion by presenting his guests—Howard Husick and Brian Rankin—who offer differing viewpoints on whether taxpayer money should continue to support NPR and PBS.

Brian Rankin’s Argument for Defunding

Funding Overview and Historical Context

[01:14] Brian Rankin:
Brian provides a historical backdrop, explaining that public media as we know it began with the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in 1967 under the Public Broadcasting Act. He highlights the evolution of the media landscape from a few local stations to a plethora of modern platforms like cable, streaming, and podcasts. He states, "CPB is receiving an annual federal appropriation of $535 million… this funding represents roughly 10% of a local public station’s revenue."

Issues of Bias and Federal Funding

[03:47] Scott Bertram:
Scott introduces the issue of perceived bias in NPR and PBS programming alongside the debate over taxpayer funding.

[04:15] Brian Rankin:
Brian acknowledges both concerns, emphasizing that federal funding often comes with strings attached. He references a 2023 essay by NPR editor Uri Berliner, which criticized liberal bias in NPR's coverage, including topics like COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Brian challenges NPR’s largely liberal listener base by posing, "What if NPR changed its content, it became more right of center and sounded more like Fox News? Would they still want their tax dollars paying for it?"

Incentives for Bias Through Funding Models

[06:44] Scott Bertram:
Scott probes whether the inability to accept commercial revenue inadvertently incentivizes bias within NPR and PBS.

[07:02] Brian Rankin:
Brian responds by noting a shift in content over the decades, suggesting that the traditional funding model may contribute to a perceived liberal tilt. He reminisces about more balanced programming in the past, such as Milton Friedman’s "Free to Choose" and William F. Buckley’s "Firing Line," which are absent today. He questions whether the model itself is flawed or if the shift is due to other factors.

Proposed Transition Away from Federal Funding

[08:14] Scott Bertram:
Scott asks about the future of NPR and PBS affiliates if federal funding were eliminated.

[08:30] Brian Rankin:
Brian advocates for a gradual wind-down of federal funds, allowing stations to transition to commercial advertising and other revenue sources. He emphasizes the importance of ensuring that smaller or rural stations, like Alaska Public Media, are supported during this transition. "If there's a market for this programming… these stations should be able to make it on their own," Brian asserts.

Feasibility of Accepting Commercial Ads

[10:26] Scott Bertram:
Scott inquires about the practical changes NPR and PBS would need to undergo to accept commercial advertisements.

[10:54] Brian Rankin:
Brian explains that NPR and PBS can already air corporate acknowledgments and suggests that statutory changes would permit them to run actual advertisements. "They can take corporate money, run an acknowledgment… They should be able to do so without significant structural changes."

Addressing Recurring Calls to Defund

[11:47] Scott Bertram:
Scott brings up the cyclical nature of defunding proposals and asks if increased oversight could address bias without cutting funds.

[12:15] Brian Rankin:
Brian believes that increased congressional pressure and accountability could address bias concerns. He points out that Congress controls the purse strings and can enforce accountability measures, but emphasizes that defunding remains a viable path to resolve foundational issues with public funding.

Dependency on Federal Funds vs. Market Viability

[13:00] Scott Bertram:
Scott questions why NPR and PBS need federal funding when they have other revenue sources like pledge drives and donations.

[13:25] Brian Rankin:
Brian argues that over half a billion dollars is substantial and suggests that public broadcasting organizations are designed to accept federal funds, potentially making them reliant. He contends that without federal support, these stations should be capable of replacing the revenue through advertising or other market-based means.

Concluding Thoughts from Brian Rankin

[14:31] Scott Bertram:
Scott humorously reflects on the contradictory arguments surrounding public broadcasting funding.

[14:44] Brian Rankin:
Brian reiterates that NPR and PBS would benefit from operating independently of federal funds, allowing them to respond directly to market demands and their audience's preferences without government interference.

Howard Husick’s Defense of Federal Funding

Acknowledging Content Critiques

[16:04] Howard Husick:
Howard begins by agreeing with many of the content critiques from conservatives regarding public broadcasting's liberal bias. He shares his experience serving on the CPB board, where his critical stance led to ostracization and pressure to resign after publishing an op-ed advocating for defunding.

Defining Liberal Bias

[18:09] Howard Husick:
Howard defines liberal bias not as overt political statements but as selective story coverage and advocacy-oriented goals. He criticizes NPR reporters for focusing on topics like social justice and immigration, which inherently shape the network's editorial direction. "They have specific, what I would call advocacy oriented goals… So you can see that that's going to inform what they choose to cover and how they choose to cover it."

Consequences of Defunding

[21:11] Scott Bertram:
Scott challenges Howard's suggestion that defunding would shift control to liberal foundations, questioning whether this would divert resources from other conservative efforts.

[24:25] Howard Husick:
Howard counters by arguing that the amount—around $500 million—is a minor fraction relative to the assets of major liberal foundations like Ford and Rockefeller. He also points out that defunding NPR and PBS wouldn't lead to their dissolution; instead, these organizations would continue through private funding, maintaining their liberal-leaning programming without taxpayer support.

Proposed Reforms for Accountability

[26:37] Howard Husick:
Howard outlines his proposed reforms to enhance accountability. He suggests legislative changes to the Public Broadcasting Act, including annual reporting to Congress on audience demographics and geographic distribution. He criticizes the current setup for its lack of accountability and proposes that Congress set clear goals to diversify NPR and PBS’s reach beyond predominantly liberal urban areas.

Eliminating Influence of Funders on Content

[27:51] Scott Bertram:
Scott queries Howard on his suggestion to prevent funders from influencing NPR and PBS content through mission statements.

[28:13] Howard Husick:
Howard argues that current underwriting practices allow funders to indirectly influence content. He cites examples of foundations with specific agendas, such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s focus on climate issues, affecting NPR’s reporting priorities. He advocates for stricter separation between funding and editorial content to prevent such influence.

Challenges to Completely Removing Federal Funds

[30:08] Scott Bertram:
Scott encourages Howard to consider a complete operational shift for NPR and PBS, similar to commercial stations, eliminating the unique funding model.

[30:41] Howard Husick:
Howard expresses skepticism about the feasibility of defunding, noting the political challenges and lack of sufficient conservative support to achieve it. He emphasizes that NPR and PBS will likely continue operating as licensed nonprofits, reliant on private donations despite defunding efforts.

Concluding Thoughts from Howard Husick

[32:37] Howard Husick:
Howard wraps up by reiterating his commitment to reforming public broadcasting to ensure greater accountability and reduce liberal bias, despite recognizing the challenges in defunding efforts.

Conclusion

[32:43] Scott Bertram:
Scott wraps up the episode by thanking both guests—Brian Rankin and Howard Husick—for their insightful contributions. He encourages listeners to explore more episodes of Future of Freedom and other podcasts from America's Talking Network.

Key Takeaways

1. Funding Models and Dependence:

   • Public broadcasting relies heavily on federal funding, which constitutes about 10% of local stations' revenue. Brian Rankin argues for phasing out this support in favor of market-based revenue sources like advertising.

2. Perceived Liberal Bias:

   • Both guests acknowledge concerns over liberal bias in NPR and PBS. Brian Rankin suggests that eliminating federal funds could mitigate this by making stations more accountable to their audiences rather than government allocations. Howard Husick focuses on the subtle influences of foundation funding on content.

3. Accountability and Reform:

   • Howard Husick proposes legislative reforms to enhance accountability, such as annual reporting to Congress and diversifying audience reach. He critiques the current CPB board structure for lacking effective oversight.

4. Political Feasibility of Defunding:

   • Howard Husick expresses doubt about the likelihood of successfully defunding public broadcasting due to political resistance and the potential for continued private funding with inherent biases.

5. Future of Public Broadcasting:

   • The debate centers on whether public broadcasting should continue under federal support or transition to a more independent, market-driven model. The guests offer contrasting visions: one favoring reduced government involvement and increased market accountability, and the other advocating for reforms to ensure better governance and reduced bias without entirely cutting federal funds.

Notable Quotes

• Brian Rankin:
  "Why is government continuing to fund public media?" [03:47]

• Brian Rankin:
  "If NPR changed its content, it became more right of center and sounded more like Fox News? Would they still want their tax dollars paying for it?" [04:15]

• Howard Husick:
  "Liberal bias is not NPR saying Donald Trump is a pariah or a racist. It's all about story selection and what topics are focused on or not focused on." [18:09]

• Howard Husick:
  "We're talking not just Soros, but Ford, Carnegie, Hewlett, Rockefeller… these foundations have more than enough funds to deal with that shortfall." [24:25]

• Brian Rankin:
  "NPR and PBS actually would be better off without receiving the federal funds because they wouldn't have to go through what they went through last week." [14:44]

• Howard Husick:
  "Corporation Republican Broadcasting Board… we only voted up or down on the whole budget… no discussion like that at all." [27:51]

Implications for Public Media and Policy

This episode of Future of Freedom encapsulates a critical debate on the role of federal funding in public broadcasting. Brian Rankin advocates for reducing government involvement to promote independence and market responsiveness, while Howard Husick emphasizes the need for structural reforms to ensure accountability and minimize bias without severing federal ties entirely.

The discussion highlights broader themes relevant to media policy, including the balance between government support and editorial independence, the influence of funding sources on content, and the evolving media consumption landscape. As public broadcasting continues to navigate these challenges, the perspectives offered by Rankin and Husick provide valuable insights for policymakers, media professionals, and the public at large.

For more detailed discussions and future episodes, visit America's Talking Network.