Trump’s war on public media, with PBS CEO Paula Kerger

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Trump’s war on public media, with PBS CEO Paula Kerger

Mixed Signals from Semafor Media
Hosts: Max Tani (Media Reporter) & Ben Smith (Editor-in-Chief)
Guest: Paula Kerger (PBS CEO)
Release Date: November 28, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode focuses on the recent and dramatic reduction of federal funding for public media in the United States, specifically PBS and NPR, driven by the Trump administration and allied Republicans. Max Tani and Ben Smith examine the stakes of this funding crisis, challenge each other’s views on public media, and interview PBS CEO Paula Kerger about PBS’s role, the political fight over funding, and the future of public broadcasting in a rapidly changing media environment.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Political Attack on Public Media Funding

[00:32] – [03:16]:

• Max Tani highlights the nostalgia and personal connection many Americans have with PBS, contrasting with Ben's distant relationship due to strict parental TV rules.
• Main Points:
  • The Trump administration and some Republicans have pushed to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports PBS and NPR.
  • This represents a major shift for an institution traditionally viewed as bipartisan, "sleepy," and non-controversial.
• Ben Smith's skepticism: Questions the need for government-funded media in the age of prolific digital options.

2. The Year of Crisis at PBS

[03:16] – [06:00]:

• Paula Kerger provides a detailed timeline of the attacks and the impacts:
  • Jan: Received a letter from FCC Chair Brendan Carr questioning PBS’s advertising, threatening defunding.
  • Formal inquiry: Congress demanded 3 years’ worth of documents.
  • MTG's hearing: Marjorie Taylor Greene summoned Kerger to defend public media as “Un-American Airwaves.”
  • Removal of Democratic CPB board members.
  • Executive Order: Banned federal funds for public broadcasters, abruptly halting children’s programming grants.
  • House and Senate votes: Both failed at the last minute; key rural stations deeply threatened.
• Kerger’s Summary: “For some of our stations, particularly in small rural communities, it's as much as half of their funding. And for them it's existential.” (Paula Kerger, 05:11)

3. Is this a New Kind of Republican Opposition?

[06:00] – [07:37]:

• Kerger reflects on previous bipartisan support—including conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley.
• What’s changed:
  • Unlike prior cycles, this wave of opposition is more unified and “determined to stay together and to follow the lead of the White House.”
  • Even rural-serving politicians didn’t break ranks, despite their districts’ dependence.

4. The Funding Vote Fallout and Potential for Reversal

[07:37] – [09:50]:

• Kerger notes surprise in Congress: Some legislators who voted for defunding seem shocked when told their local stations may disappear.
• Educational role: Emphasizing to politicians the impact of their decisions on rural, small-town America.
• Emergency alert system: PBS is crucial for delivering both individual and first responder alerts.

5. Is PBS Hooked on Outdated Technology?

[09:50] – [11:32]:

• Ben Smith's challenge: “Are you arguing that 50 years from now super important that we have over the air broadcasts? It just feels like a dying technology.” (Ben Smith, 09:50)
• Kerger responds: Significant numbers still rely on over-the-air, due to economic or geographic reasons.
  • Broadcast remains essential infrastructure for emergencies, especially when digital fails.

6. The Unique Value of PBS Content

[11:32] – [13:53]:

• Kerger: “It's not just the technology, it's the content we produce. Right... If you are deeply focused on what's happening in kids media right now, you should be concerned.” (Paula Kerger, 11:40)
• Market is moving away from high-quality kids’ content; commercial incentives are lacking.
  • She emphasizes PBS’s mission-driven programming (e.g., Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, inspired by Fred Rogers).
  • PBS is judged by public value, not shareholder returns.

7. The “Ronald Grump” / Trump Dynamic

[16:02] – [17:31]:

• Ben Smith raises the possibility that Trump holds a personal grudge due to long-running Sesame Street parodies (“Ronald Grump”).
  • Kerger shrugs: She doubts this is a real factor—if anything, “I think he kind of enjoyed being a character on Sesame Street.”
• The larger point: PBS is a rare force for science and history programming—e.g., Ken Burns’ decade-long American Revolution documentary.

8. Political Impact of Ken Burns and Public Media Advocates

[17:31] – [20:23]:

• Ken Burns’s advocacy for public media has drawn bipartisan attention, including at Capitol Hill screenings attended by both supporters and opponents.
• Despite public and donor support, many politicians fail to connect funding decisions with disappearing local programming.
• Kerger: Legislators must be reminded their constituents truly value PBS.

9. Editorial Balance and Claims of Bias

[20:23] – [23:08]:

• Ben Smith: Should PBS air more conservative programming?
• Kerger: No explicit ideological playbook—but a diversity of viewpoints is crucial: “I'm interested in hearing different perspectives... How are we going to move forward as a country if we don't try to understand each other?”
• News is only about 10% of PBS output, most is kids, science, and history.

10. Addressing Accusations of Political Pandering

[21:32] – [23:08]:

• Controversy over airing a documentary, The Last 500 Meters, which right-wing figures claim PBS shelved for years over “pro-military” bias.
  • Kerger: “No, it's not true... it just got shelved and, to be honest, it got forgotten.”
  • PBS did edit out overly graphic scenes for broadcast.

11. Can Public Media Survive in a Divided Society?

[23:08] – [26:13]:

• Tani asks if U.S. public media, like the BBC, is sustainable in times of intense polarization.
• Kerger argues: Most Americans are in the middle and value trustworthy information. Even after government funding is cut, direct public support remains strong.
  • “People don't give money to organizations they don't trust.” (Kerger, 25:25)

12. Broader Trends: Global Populism and Public Media

[26:13] – [26:51]:

• Ben asks if the attack on PBS mirrors global populist trends (cites BBC, Poland).
• Kerger: Yes—these are not U.S.-specific threats; all public media faces similar challenges.

13. Would PBS Merge or Partner for Survival?

[26:51] – [29:00]:

• Ben: Would you ever merge with NPR or BBC?
• Kerger: Structural differences prevent a full merger; partnerships (e.g., streaming deals with Amazon, YouTube TV, BBC coproductions) are ongoing and crucial for localism and reach.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "For them it's existential." (Paula Kerger on rural stations facing funding cuts, 05:11)
• "I actually did not believe that we would be defunded even in this round...I know how important those stations are." (Paula Kerger, 06:52)
• "I was shocked at the number of people that just seem so surprised that this was going to put so many stations at risk." (Paula Kerger, 09:07)
• "Are you arguing that 50 years from now super important that we have over the air broadcasts...?" (Ben Smith, 09:50)
• "If you are deeply focused on what's happening in kids media right now, you should be concerned." (Paula Kerger, 11:41)
• "No one else is doing this." (Kerger on PBS's early-childhood educational programming, 13:21)
• "We're just not in the same business. Ultimately, my success is not going to be judged by how much I'm returning to a shareholder. Our work is judged based on how we are meeting the needs of the public." (Paula Kerger, 12:43)
• "You gotta maintain the thing because of like emergency broadcasting through your television to people who have bunny ears. I mean, just get them all starlinks, they'll be fine." (Ben Smith, skepticism about PBS's broadcast role, 30:21)
• "There really is a need for a kind of media that isn't necessarily 100% driven by profit, that is trying to put out good, quality stuff for the public, at least in theory." (Max Tani, 32:47)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• PBS funding timeline & attacks: [03:16] – [06:00]
• Kerger on changing political dynamic: [06:00] – [07:37]
• Congressional fallout & local impacts: [07:37] – [09:50]
• The "Over-the-Air" debate: [09:50] – [11:32]
• Kids content crisis & PBS mission: [11:32] – [13:53]
• Sesame Street vs Trump – "Ronald Grump": [16:02] – [17:31]
• Ken Burns' advocacy: [17:31] – [19:24]
• Editorial balance & accusations of bias: [20:23] – [23:08]
• Documentary controversy & programming process: [21:32] – [23:08]
• Divisiveness & future of public media: [23:08] – [26:13]
• Mergers, partnerships, and the scrappy future: [26:51] – [29:00]

---

Tone & Language

The episode is engaging and direct, with moments of both skepticism and deep concern. Max Tani often brings personal warmth and nostalgia, while Ben Smith presses with pragmatic and sometimes cynical questions. Kerger is measured, steadfast, and passionate about public service broadcasting.

---

For Listeners

If you’re curious about why PBS and NPR have been in the political crosshairs, how decisions in Washington could silence the TV and radio stations in small towns nationwide, and whether public media still has a place in the American future, this episode provides candid answers, institutional memory, and a glimpse into the frontline battles being fought in Washington and beyond.

Essential takeaway:
Even in an era of hyper-abundant digital content, public media’s role as a source of child education, trustworthy local information, and emergency communication remains deeply valued in many communities—but its future is far from secure.

Transcript

[Paula Kerger]

Foreign.

[Max Tawney]

Welcome to another episode of the Mixed Signals podcast from us here at Semaphore Media, where we are talking to all of the most interesting and consequential people shaping our new media age. I'm Max Tawney. I am the media editor here at Semaphore, and with me, as always, is our editor in chief. He's also my boss. I could be fired by this man is Ben Smith. How's it going, Ben?

[Ben Smith]

Good. We got it. We need to talk more at the end of the show.

[Max Tawney]

Yeah, right, exactly. Well, the person we'll be speaking to before this ominous meeting that Ben has just talked about is Paula Kerger. She is the CEO of pbs. Now, usually Paula is a figure who does not necessarily want to be out there in the media all the time talking about things. And PBS generally has been a pretty sleepy organization. But this year, all of that changed when the federal government and the Trump administration decided to claw back funding from PBS and restrict funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and npr. This was a really, really big deal for people who grew up watching pbs. Just as a full disclosure for our listeners. You know, my parents would plop me down in front of the television to watch pbs. We didn't watch other stuff, but that was always okay. Ben, in preparing for the show, we talked a little bit. It seems like you did not grow up and your kids did not grow up with that kind of relationship with pbs. So you're coming in here a little bit more skeptically.

[Ben Smith]

Yeah, I suppose that's true. My parents were, like, more extreme and didn't let me watch TV at all. They considered even PBS sort of, you know, potentially corrupting.

[Max Tawney]

So, Ben, you were not particularly shocked when Trump and Republicans decided to get rid of this funding. And in some ways, you kind of think, and I'm putting words in your mouth, that this was kind of something maybe that needed to happen.

[Ben Smith]

You know, I guess I do think that in this era of proliferating media, it is a little hard to make the case for government funding of media. I don't want to be too much of a bad cop here.

[Max Tawney]

Well, fair enough. Fair enough. I'm sorry, Ben. I don't want to buy you in as the bad cop here, and I get to be all weepy and sympathetic. But we actually have Paula waiting for us, and we do have a lot of questions about the value of public media in 2025 and the future of funding for PBS and NPR. But she's a lot better equipped to answer those questions. So we'll bring her in right after this.

[Ben Smith]

There's new content waiting for you on Think with Google that you won't want to miss. Thank is the destination for marketers to access things like first of its kind research on AI adoption with the Boston Consulting Group, insights on four key consumer behaviors, streaming, scrolling, searching and shopping and deep dives on emerging technology and strategies that drive real growth. Get all of that and more by heading to thinkwithgoogle.com.

[Max Tawney]

Paula, thank you so much for joining us. Can you just walk us through a little bit what the latest is in terms of how the funding stands? Because obviously people were paying attention earlier this year. But if you could just let us know what the latest.

[Paula Kerger]

Yeah, it's been an interesting year. If you want, I can walk you through the year in about three minutes or three hours. Whatever you want, please.

[Max Tawney]

It's a podcast. We can go as long as you want.

[Paula Kerger]

It's been quite an adventure. So we started the year actually in January with a letter from Brendan Carr saying that he thinks we're running advertisements and if we are, he was going to Congress to see that we'd be defunded. It's not exactly the kind of letter you would expect from the chair of the fcc. That was actually followed some weeks later with actually a formal letter of inquiry asking to look at all of our information over the last three years, which we've sent and we're now waiting to hear back. So that was like the first thing then behind that might have been the Marjorie Taylor Greene letter inviting me to testify at her DOGE hearing. The title of the hearing is UN American Airwaves holding the CEOs of PBS and NPR to account. Following that was the effort to eliminate the Democratic appointed members of the CPB Board Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board. Remember that that organization is set up to administer federal funding. Most of that money, of course, 70% of that money goes directly to radio and television stations. A small amount goes to us, smaller amount to npr and then they help pay for some of the infrastructure. Following that was the executive order that basically said that any federal funds to public television or public radio, PBS or NPR would be illegal and that no organization that receives federal funds could use any of those money to buy anything from us. The day after that executive order, we lost the funding for all of our kids content that was under a grant program out of the Department of Education called Ready to Learn. And that was immediate. Pens down, you can spend no more dollars. And we had to cease everything. There were a couple other things in the way. But I decided that this would be the Reader's Digest abbreviated version of the last year House vote. We lost. We thought we had the votes. And then at the 11th hour, we didn't. Senate vote. Even more painful, we thought we had the votes. That was in July. And so since July, we've been working to figure out how to make sure that particularly our vulnerable stations across the country who are even more heavily reliant on federal funding make it through this period. If you remember the Newt Gingrich Contract with America, that was a three year glide path that would have taken us to zero funding. This was basically a three month glide path. And some of our stations, in aggregate, it's about 15% of their funding comes from the federal government. That's bad. But some of our stations, particularly in small rural communities, it's as much as half of their funding. And for them it's existential. And so we've been working really hard to get some funds put aside so that, you know, they can figure out what a longer term plan is if in fact the federal funding doesn't come back. I have not given up hope for that. And we can talk about that too.

[Ben Smith]

You've been fighting these fights and managing this political process not quite since Gingrich, but quite a while since the Bush administration. Does this generation of Republicans, are they different? Do they hate you more?

[Paula Kerger]

It's funny, we've always had bipartisan support. I mean, even people like Barry Goldwater going way back, they supported public broadcasting. I mean, this is where Bill Buckley had his home on Firing Line. And so, you know, there have definitely been moments probably before Gingrich, it was during Richard Nixon that had really made a run at trying to defund us. And many people remember a very famous testimony by Fred Rogers who made the case of why this is important in what we do and particularly the work that we do for kids. I've thought about this a lot. I actually did not believe that we would be defunded even in this round because I have spent a lot of time since I've been in this job traveling around and spending time in communities across the country. I've been in a lot of small communities. I know how important those stations are. I also know this is a place where a lot of legislators appear for these are the stations that usually give them airtime for debates and town halls and so forth. And they're very much a fabric of the community. I would say what's different this time is what we're seeing across a lot of other parts of decisions that are being made, which is a real determination to stay together and to follow the lead of the White House. And that is different than anything that we've seen before. I had really hoped that ultimately when votes would happen for our funding that legislators would remember their local stations. And in this case, they did not.

[Max Tawney]

It's interesting because you mentioned the Marjorie Taylor Greene Doge hearings from earlier this year. And as you were saying that, I was thinking about this journey that she has been on recently where she's obviously clashed with the White House and with Trump on a few different matters. And I'm really curious, I wonder if you think that the coalition that wanted to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, if that coalition is going to stay together, or if you think you can peel back some of the Republicans who voted against you guys earlier this year.

[Paula Kerger]

This is why I think that there may be a possibility here because since we were defunded, a few things happened that surprised me a bit. One is there were legislators that said, wait a minute, wait, what? This Corporation for Public Broadcasting is going to go out of business? It's like, well, didn't you understand that if you were not funding it, it probably wasn't going to exist? The other were the number of people that said, wait a minute, what this means? My local station. And I think that somehow, and I really don't understand this because we've spent a lot of time, mostly our stations actually have spent a lot of time making sure that legislators understand where the money that they're putting aside for public broadcasting goes. Look, I never make an assumption we're going to be funded. There are a lot of hard choices that legislators have to make about where to put federal money. And I always feel like we have to earn it every year. And I always feel like we should never make the assumption, assumption that people understand what we are and what we do and how it fits into the scheme of everything else they're balancing. But what did shock me is the number of the people that just seem so surprised that this was going to put so many stations at risk. So that's where I'm really focusing my efforts, working with so many of our stations to try to make that case, because I do feel it's a compelling one. I mean, you look at what some of these stations are doing, you know, all of our stations, most people are not aware that we're the backup system for the emergency alert for the country. That means not just for individuals that are hearing about emergencies, but it also is how information is Fed to first responders. You know that there are many people in this country that rely on over the air. This is what you're cutting off.

[Ben Smith]

I guess it seems to me risky to ally yourself so closely to what is just obviously a dying technology. Like I'm glad they do emergency alerts over the air, but gosh, I don't know a lot of people who watch over the air anymore. And that may be my own urban bias. Are you arguing that 50 years from now super important that we have over the air broadcasts, it just feels like a dying technology?

[Paula Kerger]

I'm arguing right now there are a lot of people that rely on over the air and there are a lot of people that it may be for geographic reasons or it may be for economic reasons that are really very much beholden to over the air. And you know, if you live in a city and if you live around a lot of people that spend all of their time or a lot of their time consuming media from different digital platforms. And we have a robust presence there too. So I'm not suggesting that, you know, we are just locked into broadcast as our sole purpose. But what I am saying is that you're talking about a lot of people that always get left behind. And I think in this moment, when people are getting hammered on so many other levels, whether that's access to food and access to other services, healthcare, to also cut off information feels like not a great idea. And so I think that part of the infrastructure that I'm talking about also in being the backup for emergency alert is also how information is pushed out. So even in places that have a lot of digital technology, you know what happens if you're in a place that has an emergency and those systems get overwhelmed very quickly. And to get information pushed out to a lot of people, a one to many technology is a really good solution and it's a built structure and shouldn't we be supporting it at least in the short term?

[Ben Smith]

That does sound in a way like an argument that PBS is sort of an important part of the past and of the present, but but not of the future. How do you think about that?

[Paula Kerger]

Well, it's not just the technology, it's the content we produce. Right. You know, I spend a lot of time looking at what other people do on different platforms. And let's give one example because I just referenced it a minute ago, which is kids content. If you are deeply focused on what's happening in kids media right now, you should be concerned. A lot of the streamers don't really need much Kids content. Unless you're Disney, you really don't need a lot to keep your subscription base going. You can have a couple shows that work for you and nobody subscribes to an hbo, for example, to get kids content.

[Ben Smith]

K Pop Demon Hunters was a pretty big phenomenon.

[Paula Kerger]

Yeah, that's a different kind of programming. Right. And what's happened is a lot of kids have been pushed to YouTube and a lot of YouTube content is. I'm not saying all, but there is a lot of content that kids are consuming. In fact, some of the most popular, benign at best, and sometimes not really safe for kids. I always use this analogy. We use the same tools. We're just not in the same business. Ultimately, my success is not going to be judged by how much I'm returning to a shareholder. Our work is judged based on how we are meeting the needs of the public. That's not been met in other places. I mean, I hate always defining ourselves as we're what others are not. But a lot of other organizations don't exist for the same reasons we do, which is to, in the case of kids, making sure that first time they enter school, you know, half the kids in this country are not informal pre K. So the first time kids enter school, we want them to have at least a chance of being on the same level of kids that have access to more content. And so whether that is the content we produce that provides basic skills, it's getting kids excited about learning. It's also helping them deal with their emotions. This is what Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood is about, which is based on Fred Rogers. No one else is doing this. And so what's happening is the marketplace is drying up. A lot of people that are kids producers are moving on to other things because it is much harder now to produce this kind of content. And we can be satisfied that we have content driven by algorithm, which is what our kids are being exposed to. Or we can make a decision that we also are investing in a public service, which is pbs.

[Max Tawney]

Well, we have to take a short break, but we'll have a lot more with Paula Kerger right after this.

[Ben Smith]

This week on our Branded segment from Think with Google, I spoke with Google's VP of Marketing, Josh Spanier, about what CMOs can learn from the AI transformation at their companies. What are the most common questions you get from CMOs?

[Josh Spanier]

Help. I'm actually hearing help a lot from CMOs right now, and it's sort of grouped around their AI transformation. I'm getting the question, how are you in Google marketing doing your AI transformation and what can you teach us? Or what can we learn from your progress? And really, two deeper questions are who does the AI work? Where does it sit? Within my organization and within my agency. And even more critically, how do I get my teams to embrace AI solutions and technologies? How do I take the horse to water and actually make it drink the AI water, as it were?

[Ben Smith]

And what advice are you giving them?

[Josh Spanier]

One of the most important is just finding your AI champions. Find those people in your organization who are passionate about technology, passionate about doing their job, and passionate about using AI to solve problems, and then give them more responsibility, more projects, and they can be little change agents within your organization, sparking change of behavior. That's one thing that's really helped us. A second thing, especially for CMOs, is, is you can't delegate. You have to own the conversation. Some of the tactical, practical things that have to be decided with an AI, when you push it down and you're not involved, things aren't going to go as fast as you want as people will revert back to their sort of normal ways of working.

[Ben Smith]

And where can CMOS go? To find out more about this, one.

[Josh Spanier]

Of our vice presidents, Torrence Boone, has just published a really good guide, the CMOS playbook for AI transformation. So head on over to thinkwithgoogle.com and search for CMO's playbook for AI transformation.

[Ben Smith]

You mentioned how much of the animosity to PBS right now comes from the top, comes from Trump. And I guess I hadn't known this, but I'm sure you're familiar with it, that Sesame street waged a long war on Donald Trump. From like the 80s to the early 2000s, there was a character named, named Ronald Grump who was planning to demolish Sesame street and create a grump tower. He claimed he owned all the trash.

[Paula Kerger]

Grump's the name. Ronald Grump. And I'm a grouch builder. I make places for grouches to live. Yeah, I've heard of you.

[Ben Smith]

Why?

[Paula Kerger]

You're the grouch who built a swamp.

[Max Tawney]

In a day when nobody else could do it.

[Ben Smith]

That's me. I guess I wonder in this very strange personalized moment, do you worry that's part of the problem? He holds a grudge.

[Paula Kerger]

Like, I don't know this for a fact. I think he kind of enjoyed being a people even when they're poked. Fun of me perhaps a little bit. Enjoy being a character on Sesame Street. I mean, wouldn't you? This hasn't come up in any of the discussions around you should be defunded because of Donald Grump. But I do think that when you look at, you know, the range of things that we produce, deeply committed to science in particular, at a time when I think our country really would benefit from more exposure to science and science literacy, we're very interested in history. Right at the beginning of the rollout of Ken Burns new series on the American Revolution, he's been working on this for 10 years. I mean, again, coming back to the point, why PBS? No media organizations can wait 10 years for a documentary to be produced.

[Max Tawney]

So we had Ken on the show just a few weeks ago. It was a really interesting episode. And he's been out there as a spokesperson for PBS and for public media. Most of the attention that Ken Burns has been getting as a part of the press tour around the American Revolution has been the comments that he's been making about the importance of public media. I'm really curious if you've heard from any big donors, philanthropic organizations, or members of Congress, even in response to some of these kind of calls, what has him being out there as a spokesperson done for pbs?

[Paula Kerger]

He has very strong supporters from all sides of the aisle. He's been everywhere over the last months with this film. Part of what he always does is use this as a film, as a way to get people thinking about and talking about the issues that he's trying to lay out in front of us. We did a screening, Capitol Hill, and it was interesting. There were so many people from both sides of the aisle, including people that voted to defund us, that were there, that were riveted by what he had to say. His funders, by the way, are also similar to what I just described. He has funders across the political spectrum that support his work. And so I am hopeful that in addition to the fact that people are, you know, suddenly I think, realizing, oh, this is going to affect the station that's in my own backyard. I think that when you have a project and with a filmmaker like Ken, that hopefully again, it will cause people to think again about the decisions that were made and potentially help us to put some resources back.

[Max Tawney]

Paula, I'm curious to go back to what you were saying before about the screening at the. At the Capitol. And you know, there's a lot of people who voted for the rescission who are there and who are enjoying this content. And when you see those members who are there, do you go up, you know, remind them and say, hey, you know, we helped pay for this. This is what the value of this Thing is, what do you do in that situation?

[Paula Kerger]

I say, you know, how do we get this back on track? Because most of them, I've been in their communities and I talk to them specifically about what their local stations do. And I think that all of this is the ultimate education, you know, helping people make well informed decisions. That's what we do. And I think in the case of, you know, members of Congress, there were people that had voted against us that said, we just don't want you to be forward funded. We want to make sure that we deal with you on the budget. Now, when we got to the budget process, some said, well, we just defunded you. Why would we put money in? It's like, remember what you said before? So I think it's gonna just be a real effort. And then ultimately, I mean, look, leading up to the vote, I know that millions of people reached out to legislators. I know it. They send calls, they send emails and texts and so forth. And I just. Ultimately, legislators are responsible to their constituents and I think they do care about that and just making sure that if this is meaningful to their constituents that they're reminded of it.

[Ben Smith]

Do you think part of the answer is more conservative programming?

[Paula Kerger]

No, I think, look, I take to heart our responsibility to show a diversity of viewpoint. And look, I don't have to tell you all this because you live in the middle of it. It is harder and harder to do that. People tend to gravitate towards those media outlets and a lot of times podcasts, where they know they're going to reach their base, their core, and they're not as willing to put themselves out there and to be in a place where they are not speaking to those who agree with everything they say. I'm interested in hearing different perspectives. My gosh, how are we going to move forward as a country if we don't try to understand each other? I want to understand why people think radically different than I do. And I think the rest of the country would benefit from that too. So being able to make sure that we are trying to bring forward different perspectives, I think is part of what we do. The other thing that's important to remember is only about 10% of our work is news and public affairs. Most of what we do as kids. I've already talked about some of our documentaries and science and history.

[Ben Smith]

You also recently aired a documentary called the last 500 meters by a director, Michael Paak, kind of a MAGA activist. Steve Bannon invited me to the screening a few weeks ago of that. And at the Screening Pack said that that PBS had kept that documentary on the shelf for 17 years because in his view you believed it was too pro military and that basically this year, in a scramble to mollify right wingers, you guys put it on air. Is that a correct interpretation?

[Paula Kerger]

No, it's not true. I mean, when the program was delivered and actually I think if you saw the screening, you did not see what we broadcast. It had. The, that beheading scene was not in the broadcast. It was very gory and it was very gory. And we also were between different program directors. She had some concerns about the program and it just got shelved and you know, to be honest, it got forgotten. And he would periodically remind me, and the show then became older. And I don't make program decisions, I want to be clear about that. But you know, we had talked about whether we should air it and it felt like it was like an older series, it was still relevant. And Michael and Gina, his wife, who runs this production company, came back to us last and they said, we really think you should look at the film. We took a fresh look at it and said, you know what? It is an older film. It now, I think after the benefit of some time makes sense to air it. And we aired it around Veterans Day. We've taken other films from Michael Pax, so it's not like we were afraid to have work from him on our air. We should be doing that. We should be looking for programming that comes from lots of different places.

[Max Tawney]

You mentioned the BBC earlier and they have their differences in their funding and they have the kind of public fee that everybody kind of transparently pays for. Obviously they're in a pretty interesting and remarkable situation over there right now over a series of issues. I have been struck listening to some of the complaints that Trump has had about pbs, his programming. He said they're like worse than cnn, which my bias here is that I find that to be crazy. I think that the PBS programming is pretty clearly down the middle in the same way that much of NPR's programming on a day to day basis is incredibly, deliberately, very much down the middle. And so I'm curious, do you think that societies that are this divided, where this very, I think very straightforward news programming can be cast as this kind of lefty political programming if societies this divided can sustain public media?

[Paula Kerger]

I do think again, you know, we try to pay attention to who's watching our programs and Rainiers and who, who runs Frontline has actually spent a lot of time thinking about this, about making sure that the programming that we're producing and, you know, and everything from the subjects that we choose and the way that the programs are produced are fair. And she actually has been very involved in something around transparency, where she publishes a lot of interviews, full interviews. You can then go back and look at the few interviews and you can see what decisions have been made. And I think this is where the BBC question was, around how something was edited. So I think you can see what was actually said and you compare it with what ended up in the show and so forth. But again, it comes back to my earlier point around the fact that I think that there are people that want to see when they watch something, when they watch something that is described as news, that they are having their own opinions reflected back. And if it's not that, then there clearly is some bias somewhere. I actually don't believe that's where most of the people in this country live. I think most of the people in this country do live in the middle. And I think that most people in this country are really interested in trying to understand issues that are sitting in front of us and want to be able to make good decisions for their families and their communities and ultimately for the country. And that's why our audiences are still very strong. And I think that there is a place for organizations like mine that are viewed as highly trusted. And even in this media environment where everyone has taken a hit in terms of their trust, ours has stayed strong. Part of that is also related to how we're funded. Most of our money, even when there was government funding, came from viewers like you. People don't give money to organizations they don't trust. And we did a lot of polling leading up to the rescission vote. A lot of people, majority of people who voted for the president supported funding for us. So I do think that there is. I think there is not only a place for public media in this moment, but I think people are hungering for it. They want to come to a place where, you know, they can trust the information that they're seeing.

[Ben Smith]

Did you see yourself in the BBC situation at all? Like, clearly there's something happening in these attacks on public media. It happened in Poland too. That is not really specific to the US but is more about, like, the way populism works.

[Paula Kerger]

Yeah, I think the fact that people were surprised about the BBC to me is a surprise because I think public media around the country is under attack. And I think you should have the BBC on. Actually. I think it's a very interesting story and how they have responded, I think is important. Here we have an American president that is threatening, you know, a foreign broadcaster. I mean, there's a lot about that that is just a really interesting story that we should all be following.

[Ben Smith]

Abstracting away from a lot of what you do, which is manage the politics of the United States of America. Challenging thing to do. You're also running a medium sized media company at a moment when companies of that scale are basically scrambling around to find alliances and partnerships of various sorts. I mean, in Paramount plus case, that means they're gonna buy everything. There's a whole number of essentially like what the corporate types call subscale streamers looking to buy or be bought or merge in some way. And I wonder if in this moment you've considered that. I mean, the BBC actually would be the obvious partner.

[Paula Kerger]

You're generous in saying we're medium sized. You know, we're a scrappy little organization that I think punches well above our we. And we've always looked for ways to really extend the value of the work that we do. I do think what we do is very different. We have built partnerships with other media organizations. Our principal streaming partner has been Amazon. And we built that partnership as we watched the DVD business drying up. And that's how many of our producers actually could make a living. It's on the back end around that. And so that's helped us. And so we're always looking. We have a. A great relationship with YouTube. The YouTube TV deal for us was significant. And it's significant because they're carrying all of our local stations. And that's to me, also really important. It's not just about Ken, as extraordinary as he is, it's also making sure that our stations in Peoria and in Birmingham, Alabama and across the country also are able to profile their local programming.

[Ben Smith]

But you wouldn't contemplate like a merger with NPR or with BBC or something like that?

[Paula Kerger]

Well, I don't know. I mean, some of our stations are actually both PBS and nbsp NPR stations, but they're news organizations, so they are in fact different than what we are. And as I said, BBC, we do a lot of work with them and we're always talking about additional ways that we can work together. Full merger. I don't think, given the fact that we're separate nonprofits chartered in very different ways would exactly work. But being able to do more work in partnership, I think is something that we're always interested in.

[Max Tawney]

Well, Paula, at a moment when not everybody wants to go onto a podcast and be asked tough questions. As you mentioned before, we really appreciate you coming on ours and doing just that. So thank you so much.

[Paula Kerger]

Oh no, it was a pleasure being with you. Thank you for including me. I'll come back anytime.

[Ben Smith]

In an era where AI is rewriting the rules and consumer behavior is changing by the minute, how do you stay relevant? You turn to the experts. Think with Google, brings you insights from top CMOs, practical guides on emerging tech and strategies that drive real growth. It's like having a marketing guru in your pocket. Visit thinkwithgoogle.com to become a forward thinking marketer. Your next game changing idea is just a click away.

[Max Tawney]

So Ben, you came into this episode a little skeptical of pbs. You know, you're a very, very forward thinking executive leader, unsentimental about the past and all the kind of nice things that PBS has done. It's really what have you done for me lately type of situation. Did you come away less skeptical of the whole endeavor or did you feel like the Republicans did a good job in getting rid of our taxpayer dollars for pbs?

[Ben Smith]

Paul's an incredibly kind of impressive character. You don't testify on Capitol Hill that many times and survived that long. We were talking about how her counterparts at the BBC are all resigning all the time, you know, without just an incredibly sure footedness. But I do think this is basic problem that she's out there telling Republicans that they gotta maintain the thing because of like emergency broadcasting through your television to people who have bunny ears. I mean, just get them all starlinks, they'll be fine. But I do think that there's this pull toward the past that any organization that has a really elderly audience has that makes it like hard for them to simultaneously think really hard about the future. And then they are also a production company that produces some of the best documentaries that America's ever made and that I do think have real staying power wherever they live. But there is this sort of pull backward that I think is about pandering to their Republican rural constituents but makes it hard for them to look forward.

[Max Tawney]

The strongest thing that they have in their favor argumentatively is the kids programming, which I think, you know, she's right, is of a higher quality than the kind of stuff that you'll be getting on YouTube. What do you make of that argument and why do you think that that didn't work?

[Ben Smith]

I don't think that their critics are wrong, that it's just this totally different media moment when if you're really saying we are basically primarily for people who Only have broadcast television, and we are a way to get a small slice of rural Americans. Is this really the cheapest way to get them connected to quality programming? That said, I do think a lot of parents are very freaked out, as she's saying, about what kind of garbage kids are consuming on YouTube. And the notion of quality children's program as a differentiation is something to sell. I mean, it obviously works for Disney, by the way, and it makes sense that it should work for them. More of a PBS kid than I was. And I know you're basically quite sympathetic to where she's coming from, but did she persuade you that there's a future for this enterprise, that there's a place that people are gonna watch this stuff?

[Max Tawney]

I am also equally kind of unsentimental. Maybe not as much as you, but I think we both agree, and this comes through in our coverage of a lot of legacy media companies, media organizations, is that it is nice what you've done in the past, but media is so much literally, what have you done today or yesterday or whatnot? I mean, we feel this way when we get a scoop. It's like, it feels great in the mom, and then you wake up the next day and you're like, okay, what's next? You know, and so nostalgia's a really tough sell commercially, and it's an even tougher sell when you have to kind of wade into the political arena. But, you know, I definitely do think that there's obviously something that's lost when all of the motivation for what's driving content in the media business is what is gonna do well, in short form, video content. What's gonna be the most sensational thing that we can put out there. I mean, look, we see this in our own stuff that we work on that we do. Right. I. For the masses to be really interested in our analytical breakdowns of what's going on, the tectonic changes in corporate media. But the reality is, is that not many of them care very much. You see that challenge all across media. And I do think that there really is a need for a kind of media that isn't necessarily 100% driven by profit, that is trying to put out good, quality stuff for the public, at least in theory. I mean, in practice, I don't really know. But in theory, I do think that that's a valuable mission. So. Yeah, and that's my bias kind of coming into this.

[Ben Smith]

Yeah, I know Paula kept talking about View. I guess she meant viewers like you.

[Max Tawney]

Yes, but it is true. Like, I mean, if you think about, like, really interesting public access television. I'm sure the real problem is that there is so much good, mesmerizing, salacious, kind of and even more interesting and compelling programming that's out there and you have access to all of it through the Internet. So you might not watch a show on local access television. But of course, this is coming at a time when there are a lot of communities that don't have access to any sort of information, things that are going on in their towns.

[Ben Smith]

Well, thank you for getting Paula on. She's a really, very consequential character right now.

[Max Tawney]

Thank you, Ben. Well, that is it for us this week. Thank you so much for listening to another episode of Big Signals from us here at Semaphore. Our show is expertly produced by Manny Fadal, with special thanks to Josh Billenson, Chad Lewis, Rachel Oppenheim, Anna Pizzino, Garrett Wiley, Jules Zern, Tori Kaur, and Daniel Haft. Our engineer is Requan, and our theme music is by Billy Libby. Our public editor is Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who earlier this year was not happy with NPR funding. But nowadays, who knows?

[Ben Smith]

Maybe she loves the media now.

[Max Tawney]

Maybe. But if you like mixed signals, please follow us wherever you get your podcasts and feel free to review us.

[Ben Smith]

And please sign up for our media newsletter, where Max constantly breaks news out every Sunday night.

[Max Tawney]

And sometimes Ben does, too, when he's got something good. Still, once in a while.