Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:00]
Boost Mobile Announcer
If this back to school season talking to your teenager sounds like this.
- [00:06]
Charlie Sykes
With.
- [00:07]
Boost Mobile Announcer
Boost Mobile, make it sound like this. Come to your Boost store, get a line and take home a tablet for only $99.99. Perfect for staying connected and studying anywhere they're happy and you safe. Visit your nearest booth. Store requires ID verification, new $20 per month tablet plan and $35 device setup fee. Taxes extra.
- [00:30]
Paula Kerger
Did I talk too much?
- [00:31]
Warby Parker Announcer
Can't I just let it go?
- [00:39]
BetterHelp Announcer
Take a breath. You're not alone. Let's talk about what's going on. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals and online therapy makes it convenient. See if it's for you. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy and let life feel free.
- [00:59]
Grainger Announcer
Better if you're a custodial supervisor at a local high school, you know that cleanliness is key and that the best place to get cleaning supplies is from Grainger. Grainger helps you stay fully stocked on the products you trust, from paper towels and disinfectants to floor scrubbers. Plus, you can rely on Grainger for easy reordering, so you never run out.
- [01:20]
Boost Mobile Announcer
Of what you need.
- [01:21]
Grainger Announcer
Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [01:43]
Charlie Sykes
Welcome to the to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. All of you remember this summer when Congress voted to pull $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, raising alarms not just for PBS and for NPR, but for the 330 PBS officials affiliates and the 249 NPR affiliates. And then, of course came the news that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was disbanding. So what's going on? Where do we go? How did this happen? We are very fortunate to be joined by Paulette Kirger, who is the president and CEO of PBS, has been there for 19 years, the longest serving CEO that PBS has ever had. So welcome to the podcast. Paula. I really appreciate your time. So I guess the first question I have to ask you is did you ever think that you'd be in this position right now, heading public broadcasting at a time when the President and the Congress have stripped you of all public funding?
- [02:43]
Paula Kerger
No. I actually never thought we would get to this place. I've been in public broadcasting for a long time, so I've been in this job, as you pointed out, 19 years. But I spent 13 years before that at WNET. So I was around. And that's our public station in New York. So I was around for the Newt Gingrich, Contract With America time. And I remember that quite well. That was probably the, you know, one of the more difficult times in the recent history for public broadcasting. And he had designed what he referred to as the glide path to the future, which was three years and out. What we're in terms of federal funding, what we're dealing with right now is something that is, you know, is quite dire and significant, which is we were defunded in July, mid July, funds that had already been appropriated by two prior Congresses. So the 1.1 billion that you're referring to, it's. It's about 550 million a year. And our stations were anticipating receiving that money in October. So, you know, not three months, you know, not three, three years, but three months to figure out how we're going to, you know, close that very significant funding gap. So, yes, it's been an interesting few weeks, for sure.
- [04:01]
Charlie Sykes
Well, so what is your reaction to all this? Because it was kind of a surprise. I do remember the Contract With America. And in the past, you know, Republicans had rattled the cages about cutting off funding for public broadcasting. But in the end, because of the concern about what would happen with rural stations, smaller stations, they always backed off. And then they did it. Not just, I mean, the president ordered it and then Congress went along with it. So just get your reaction. I mean, are you alarmed, angry, feeling liberated?
- [04:32]
Paula Kerger
Well, you know, if. If you will indulge me couple minutes, I can tell you what it was like living through it in real time. So, you know, we. I've spent a lot of time over the summer making sure that people around the country understood what was at risk. And I would like to think I'm a pretty eloquent, you know, defender of public broadcasting. It's, it's certainly an organization that I care deeply about, but the more eloquent defenders are really our station managers who, you know, spent a lot of time making sure that legislators understood what is at risk. The percentage of money that comes into public broadcasting from the federal government is about 15% of the total funding for public media. But that's an aggregate number. For some stations, it's, you know, 7 or 8 or 9%. Significant hit, but a survivable one for at least one of our public television stations. 56% of their money came from the federal government. So we spent a lot of time talking to people on both sides of the aisle. We've always had a lot of support from people on both sides of the aisle, both in the House vote and in the Senate vote. We thought that we had the votes. And in both cases, the same thing happened. As the deliberations continued, there was a pause, and then suddenly the votes that we thought we had went away. The most painful was on the Senate side, and Senator Collins was putting forward an amendment that would have taken some money out of public media but made sure that the stations stayed intact. That was my biggest concern. I was prepared to put our funding on the table and just, you know, make sure that our stations stayed funded. And again, we, you know, we had people from both sides of the aisle, and particularly on the Republican side, that were prepared to support her amendment. And then suddenly, her amendment was never brought forward. There was a pause in activity. Clearly, there were a lot of discussions behind the scenes, and Senator Kelly then offered the amendment up instead of Senator Collins. It was discarded for some rules basis, and we lost again. So, I mean, it's just having watched this transpire and at the same time the debates were going on, by the way, Senator Mikowski was talking about the fact that, you know, she was getting emergency alerts on her phone that were coming from the radio station in Alaska about a possible tsunami. And, you know, and that was discarded as if, you know, you know, we were just broadcasting stuff, and anybody could broadcast. Well, in that part of Alaska, the only station is the public station. And what I think most people didn't understand is in addition to all the work that people know that public television does in terms of bringing kids content and news and everything else, we were the redundant path for the emergency alert system for the country, which had been funded for years by the government, and that was discarded as being not important, not relevant, and we were defunded. So, yeah, for many, many reasons, I was surprised that we've ended up where we are.
- [07:56]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. Speaking of Alaska, I was reading this AP report. Alaska Public Media has suspended the weekly public affairs TV show Alaska Ins, which is not returning after the summer. The Future of India. Alaska weekly video series highlighting the lives of Alaskans is also in danger. So I know it's somewhat speculative, but why do you think this happened and why was it such a priority? And I guess the question I have is now I want to make it clear I'm a big fan of npr, big fan of wnyc. I used to host a show there. Did you get thrown in with public radio? Because generally, when I have discussions with conservatives about this, the conversation is rarely about public television. It tends to be about perceived bias in public radio. Do you think politically you were conflated?
- [08:49]
Paula Kerger
Well, I mean, I think that this was an attack on public media, TV and radio. What I will say is, you know, there were a whole series of things that happened over the course of this year. So it began in January where the head of the fcc, the new head of the FCC said that he thought that we were running commercials, and that if we were running commercials, he was going to go to Congress and ask that we be defunded. Now, that's a highly unusual activity for the head of the sec. And normally, if you do something that seems out of bounds, then there's usually a letter of inquiry, there's a whole process. And so for it to have come this way was confusing. The letters of inquiry then followed, and we're now going through that process. That that was the first thing. Then there was the executive order. And the executive order from the president said that no federal money would be given for could be given to PBS or npr. And then it went a step further, and it said that no station could use any federal money that they received to go to PBS and npr. And when that was released. So now I'm going to answer your question. When that was released, there was a press release that came out of the White House that had a series of facts of why we were biased media, because that's how we were labeled in the executive order. And most of them were public radio, but there were a few public television examples thrown in. Ironically, most of the references on the public television side, I can't comment on the radio side, but most of them were actually not pbs. There were programs that had come from our stations. But, you know, look, when I was called to testify in front of the Doge Committee, Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, it was both PBS and NPR side by side. And, you know, they had issues that they took up with both of us. You know, we're not a news organization, so we are in a slightly different position than radio, which is, you know, largely news. They also do music, of course. But, you know, why we have ended up in the place that we are right now is really fully difficult to understand. And, you know, the real challenge is where the greatest impact of this is going to be felt is in small rural stations around the country where, you know, they do the Farm Report alongside of, you know, the NewsHour alongside of Daniel Tiger's neighborhood for little kids to, you know, candidate debates. Iowa always covers the state fair. They have a big setup there. I mean, these are stations that are going to be deeply impacted by these cuts. And I would assume that their constituents care. I know that Millions of calls and texts went up to the hill in anticipation of this vote, but still people were dug in and they were following, I guess, a directive that this was important to the administration and that we should be defunded.
- [12:15]
Charlie Sykes
All right, so what happens now? What happens next? There was a lot of concern when we read, you know, on our phone alerts that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was closing up. And what does that mean? So what is going to happen to PBS nationally, but also what's going to happen to those affiliates? You can break that into two separate buckets if you like.
- [12:38]
Paula Kerger
So, so the corporation. Let's start with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We're awfully confusing in, you know, in PBS land. I think people really struggle to understand what we are. We're not a network. Right? So when, if I can give a small, small history lesson. When public broadcasting began in, in this country, we came after commercial media. So commercial. This is different than the uk. Everyone knows the BBC. BBC came first, commercial media came second. This is media developed in most parts of the country, but here we're a little different. So commercial media was a burgeoning industry. And it was actually the first woman FCC commissioner, woman by the name of Frida Hennig, who thought there should be some place within the media landscape that was focused on educational purposes. And so she lobbied to have spectrum put aside for public television. So we came second. And in really developing out public broad broadcasting, lbj, whose family was involved in the radio business, so understood that and understood the power of it. He knew, he thought that this country needed something like the BBC. And so he was part. He signed the Public Broadcasting act, which helped create the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was the beginning of where the federal government got involved with pbs. Prior to that, we had local stations around the country that petitioned for these non commercial licenses. And a lot of them did educational content. Some were classroom of the air and so forth. But he had this vision that he wanted to create great culture and great art and other things that he had seen and that he was aware of in other parts of the world. And so there needed to be a funding mechanism if the federal government was going to give money for public broadcasting. And he thought that it would be inappropriate for the government to individually fund media organizations because he felt that that had all kinds of risks, both in terms of any kind of editorial firew. And so the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was a private nonprofit organization, was created. And its principal purpose was to take the government appropriation, make sure that the media organizations, radio and television Were operating in the public interest, and that they would be responsible for distributing those funds out. And so without the federal appropriation, the corporation no longer has a reason to exist, because that was their primary function. So they will, in fact, sunset, I think, at the end of this year. And so what that leaves us with now is really trying to figure out one how do we replace some of the funding that came into being, how we, as a system really come together? Because the corporation, in ensuring that all of these stations were operating in the public interest, also had a little bit of a governance oversight, too. So that actually is pulled out. We're still trying to figure out what that means. They also provided resources for. We have an arrangement with the various guilds for music rights that both public television and public radio. And that's not just music programs. That's all the music that you hear around different programs. So we have a blanket agreement with those guilds. And so the corporation paid for that. So that's just one example of things that they help to pay for the money that came from the federal government that paid for our infrastructure, the satellite broadcast and all that stuff. So right now we're working to figure out all those things that need to be passed over. But my first priority, and the thing that I began working on in mid July when we were defunded, Is to try to put together a pool of money that could be used by particularly the most vulnerable of stations in places like Alaska, which we've already talked about. And in different parts of the country. The stations are heavily reliant on federal funding and need at least some Runway to figure out how they can operate in the future. Some of them may actually end up consolidating together. Some of them may create opportunities where they can share some services, accounting and so forth. Some will actually go dark. And so what I was hoping to do is. And what I have been hoping to do is working in partnership with a group of foundations and an organization called the public media company that has really coalesced, A group of funders that can put some money into those stations that are most at risk so that they have at least some time to plan for the future. I would also hope that at some point legislators might step back and look at what they've done and perhaps rethink some of the decisions that have been made, Particularly around supporting local stations, and I would say particularly around supporting local vulnerable stations. There was a recognition, for example, there's a lot of rape radio stations that are controlled by native American organizations that were really fully funded by the federal government. I think there's been some effort, I think, out of the Bureau of Indian affairs, actually, to make sure, at least from the federal side, that those are funded. But on the TV side, I really have been working to make sure that we're making all of our stations whole. The other thing that I've been involved in is 60% of the money that comes to us comes from our stations. We're like a co op. Everyone puts money together, and we collectively then create the programming that we share with the public. And so we took a significant reduction in the dues that our stations pay again to give them more breathing room, and we reduced it by the same percentage of the federal appropriations so that they would have that ability to try to close that gap in the long term. That's not sustainable. So looking for other sources of revenue, also looking for revenue to support some of our big series, particularly NewsHour. That's a nightly newscast, you know, so you, you know, it has a significant amount of resources that are needed in the near term, as opposed to some of our, you know, documentaries and so forth, that, you know, you could take a little longer for something to deliver and so forth. But to really think about what is the longer term sustainability is. Is what we're deeply eng. And that's where I think the public has really stood up. I've been so really gratified to see for so many of our stations are reporting that people are reaching out and making contributions and saying, look, I always took you for granted. You were always there. I realize now you're vulnerable. You're like a part of my family. You're an integral part of my day. And so just making sure that we're out there talking to as many people. So you're helpful to me and making sure that I can, you know, say, support your local station. Anyway, I think that's, you know, we've always been a public private partnership. I've always been proud that we're, I think, one of the most successful of the public private partnerships that have existed for more than 50 years. And so now we just have to really lean into the private part and make sure that everyone steps up and does their piece.
- [20:09]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I want to talk about that in a moment. So, in terms of going forward, what does this mean for, say, Ken Burns series on the Revolutionary War? We're still going to get that, right? That's not going to go away, not going to be truncated. Those are, you know, I've heard you say that maybe some of the other Series are going to have to be shortened. But, but, but those mainstays are going to stay that we're not going to see programming changes at that level.
- [20:32]
Paula Kerger
Well, in the near term, for sure. No, I mean, the thing about television and you know, this is that, you know, we, we work on things way in advance. So, you know, many of the programs that are in the pipeline for this year were already funded, were already taken care of in terms of being able to deliver those to the public. And Ken's series on the American Revolution, if I can do a brief commercial, is absolutely extraordinary. It is a 12 hour series. He has worked on the series for 10 years. And I sat in a conference room in his office next to him and screened all 12 hours. And I can tell you that it is, it is, I think, one of the greatest gifts that we can give our country as we anticipate the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I think as we as a country wrestle with where we're going, it's important to understand where we came from. It was messy, it was improbable and it was fragile. And I think all of those things are true today. And I think as we look at, at significant decisions that we as a country must make to have a series like that out there, not just for the public to enjoy, but we also distribute content into schools and so forth. I mean, I think it's just, it's important that will broadcast in November with some series that we, that we have. There was already an announcement. Our American Experience series, we're taking, we have some programs that were already produced. We're taking a little bit of a pause and, and we will pull together the resources to continue that forward. So we're just trying to calibrate what does it look like now? I didn't mention, I didn't go through my whole chronology of all the things that have happened over the last months. On May 1, we were defunded from any monies that we received out of the Education Department for our children's content and, you know, for, for 30 years and on a five year renewing cycle. So the last time this was renewed was actually during the last Trump administration is we were commissioned to create content for the youngest children to help them develop the skills they need to be successful in school, therefore in life. And so, you know, basic skills in math and literacy. And, you know, the last round asked us to focus on, you know, workforce preparedness. Now we interpreted that to mean the skills that one needs, you know, basic skills to succeed in school, obviously, because that will put you on the path for success in the workplace. But, you know, but that was, you know, May 1st. All funding was cut off immediately, and we had two series in production. One is premiering, is premiering now. It's called Weather Hunters. It's a project that was brought to us by Al Roker, and it's a really great STEM series, teaches kids about, you know, weather, but, you know, also science principles and so forth. And, you know, so we've had to, you know, quickly move to try to fill the funding gap for the, for the rest of it. But it's, you know, it's daunting when you look at everything that, you know, we're trying to deliver. So I would say in the near term, I don't think you'll see too much of a shift. But I think we are going to have to probably prioritize a little bit more around what are the most important problems, projects that we want to bring forward. So we have a big library. We'll bring some programs back from the library and so forth, too.
- [24:28]
Charlie Sykes
So the big question mark seems to be hanging over this entire discussion, though, is whether or not the private sector is going to be able to fill the hole in the near term or the long term. So you've been working with foundations, the Knight foundation, the MacArthur foundation and others. And I guess the question is, this is a rich country. There's a lot of people out there there. Why should we not expect, or do you expect that in fact private donors, big donors, small donors, viewers are going to step up, given the emergency? I mean, I get mailings here, you know, public television, public radio. And my only reaction to some of them and some of their, like, what is it? Defunded but not defeated, or I think something like that. I mean, they're actually very well done. My only question is you're not asking for enough money because you have a very, very, very loyal constituency that understands, I think, understands the gravity. So why should. So, I mean, give me your sense. I mean, this is what you do every day. What is your sense about the willingness and the ability of the private sector to fill this hole created by the congressional defunding?
- [25:32]
Paula Kerger
Yeah. So, I mean, I think this is the open question. So obviously, you know, we're doing all that we can to reach out, you know, to as many people both, you know, the thing that's beautiful about public broadcasting is I always say it's the most. It's the most American of organizations. In fact, not to belabor a point, but the thing that bothered me the most about the Doge hearing, it was titled Un American Airwaves. Now I, you know, public broadcasting is referred to many ways, never in my memory as being called un American. And the thing that has always to me been our greatest strength is that we are of the people. Most of our stations, the largest percentage of money that they receive is from lots of small contributions of people that are members. You know, tons of people have tote bags and mugs and everything else. They feel proud to be part of their, of their local station. And so in this moment, we are hearing from a lot of people. And that's great, great. I hope we can sustain it. That's the question. Whenever there's an emergency, people rush in and you know, then life is life. People get distracted by other things and they move on to, you know. So I think it's going to be up to us to make that case. The second thing that people say to me is it's a little twist of what you said is there are a lot of rich people in this country. Can't you find a couple billionaires to solve your problem? And the answer is problematic, though. They yes. And the problem is that's not what public media is about. Public media is about lots of people supporting. And even if the perception is that someone is, you know, playing an outsized role, I think that's problematic. Now I'm not turning away any large contributions, believe me. I, you know, but I think we have to balance it all out. I think there is not one person out there that's going to write a big check that's going to solve all our problems. We shouldn't expect that. I think that we are very much of the communities we serve and that everyone should come together and give commensurate to what they feel comfortable doing. And if we can do that, then I think we'll be in much stronger state than we are right now.
- [27:49]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so let me play devil's advocate with you for a moment. And I know you've heard all of these arguments, but you know, there is a case, a non Trumpian, non maga case that can be made that the world has changed rather dramatically since the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson signed this first legislation that at one time you had three big networks, networks to have a fourth network devoted to educational television made a lot of sense. But now we have a thousand flowers that have bloomed. Did you have YouTube channels? You have that. The entire media landscape has changed so dramatically that it's no longer necessary to have taxpayers funding a media outlet. I mean, at one time when there was a shortage, but now there's no shortage. There's no shortage of educational programming. Feel free to push back. I mean, no shortage of programming for. For children. There's the History Channel you have created in your 19 years there. 67% of U.S. television households watch PBS. You reach 42 million adults on linear primetime television every month. More than 15 million users on PBS owned streaming platforms. 56 million people view your content on social media.
- [29:05]
Paula Kerger
That sounds like you can make a.
- [29:06]
Charlie Sykes
Go of it in the private sector. So I guess the question is, when you go back to Congress, people will say, well, why should the taxpayers fund something that obviously has such a huge constituency in an environment in which there are so many choices and options?
- [29:24]
Paula Kerger
Well, there may be many flowers blooming in the desert, but I'm not sure that they are delivering all that. You know, one would think given such abundance. You know, I used to. You know, we first had the argument when we moved from broadcast of just a few channels to the cable landscape. And you're correct. There's the History Channel. There was something called the Learning Channel, which is now tlc. There's Bravo, that used to be high art. Sundance used to be about documentary film. I think all three of those that I'm mentioning do a lot of Law and Order reruns now because it's just, you know, there is this lofty idea that we would create the commercial version of public media, but the marketplace always drove it back another direction. And you're seeing that play out actually across all of these other distribution platforms. I would not suggest for a moment that the only great programming is on pbs. There's great programming everywhere, but the imperative is different. And if your goal at the end of the day is to derive maximum profits, you're going to make different decisions than if your goal is public service. And that's just the way it is. And I can point to this over and over and over again. If you look at the children's programming business right now, which has changed profoundly, we are actually the only ones that are deeply invested in educational content that is rigorously tested to make sure that when kids watch a show, it's not not just a safe thing for them to watch, but that they are getting out of it this basic skills that they need to master. And what has happened is, you know, there was a moment when there was a ton of children's content everywhere. Now, not so much. There is a lot of stuff on YouTube and there are some good things on YouTube too, but not all of it is. And in fact, there's a chunk of it that is pitched towards kids that really isn't for kids and it really isn't about helping them learn. A lot of kids content now is created by AI and algorithm. It is designed to be addictive so that kids watch more and more of it. And. And so I. I think that there is a place for something that is privately funded, that is focused on the outcomes, not on just the economics. If you look at documentary films, there was a few years back, it was sort of the golden days of documentary film. Documentary films were being bought by every. Everyone. Now, not so much. That whole business is really in very serious circumstance again, because. And I don't want to pick on Sundance, but I'll mention them again. You know, that is where I see Law and Order. I see programs like that. And so I just think that it's. I always say we're not in the same business. We just happen to use the same tools. And, you know, it's just. It's a different perspective. It is a different, different imperative. And that's why I think we have always argued that ultimately our services is to the public. We'll take on subjects that we know are not going to have a big audience, but to the audience that watches are really important. And we think about programs that are going to make people think. Now, I see a lot of programs like that on YouTube and on the various podcasts and so forth. And I think this has been a huge contribution. You hear lots of perspectives, are able to think about that. We launched a series last year called Deadlock, and it is a reinvention of the old Fred and friendly seminars, if you remember those, where you take difficult issues, you bring people together in a discussion, people that are adjacent to the roles that they're asked to play. You run through some scenarios and you force people not to come to a discussion, what they're talking to points. But to actually be in a debate around significant issues that we should be wrestling with. The first season, we did a pilot, it was right before the election, and we did it on voter fraud. We did the second one on executive power. We're getting ready to tape the third. We found an extraordinary moderator, Aaron Tang, who's a law professor. This is another commercial, by the way, who's a law professor from UC Davis. And it's. It is a. And it brings together people from both sides of the aisle, both participating as well as watching. And I. It feels to Me, like a very public television, a very PBS kind of project. And again, I just. It would be hard to imagine a similar project like this done anywhere else.
- [34:25]
Charlie Sykes
You know, I was just rereading a biography of William F. Buckley, Jr. And, you know, I think the author or at least one of the critics was making the point. You cannot understand Buckley without understanding his television Persona and his role as a performer. And that was public television. Yes, Firing Line, which really was the progenitor of this entire genre. But I would also urge people to go back and watch, you know, just one or two episodes of Firing Line and compare it to a. A segment on cable television today, and it should put any of the producers to shame. The kind of, the contradiction of the fact that you could have a complete conversation and intelligent ideas and speak in paragraph. So the one other question I would have would be, in some ways, when I asked you before, you alarmed, angry or liberated, not having to worry about government money as opposed to nonprofit money, government money. In some ways, is it not. Are you not better off that you don't have to worry about the kind of political interference that is now out there, that you don't have to worry about keeping congressmen from North Dakota happy, or you don't have to worry about not ticking off the guy in the gilded Oval Office? I mean, to a certain extent, doesn't that unshackle public media?
- [35:52]
Paula Kerger
Look, I think, think for all of the funding that comes to us, whether it's from the federal government or it's from individual donors, I feel a great accountability and responsibility for those funds. And I, you know, if you ask me today, am I making different decisions or thinking differently about the work we're doing now that we don't have the federal money? The answer is no. I always feel like we put the same care and attention into what we're doing, and we don't shy away. We didn't shy away before. In telling hard stories, I would point to our Frontline series, which, you know, tackles some of the, you know, the most significant, you know, issues of our time. And, you know, we never shied away from that. In the middle of the whole debate, we ran documentary on the first hundred days of the Trump administration. So I think, I think that, you know, for me, I've not, I've not woken up any day and thought, well, this is now, you know, now I don't have to worry about that. I think we should be accountable. I think we always should be thinking about how do we bring multiple voices forward. I think that's the challenge in our country right now is that people are self selecting what media they want to watch because they want their own opinions reflected back to them. I mean, the Bill Buckley example is a great one. I mean, he was very much a part of, you know, of what public broadcasting always aspired to be, which is to bring some of the great minds forward. And if we are, if we have any hope for our country, then we've got to stay focused on that. We have to make sure that we're helping people understand each other. And that's the role, I think, that, you know, that PBS should be playing.
- [37:43]
Charlie Sykes
So you've made it clear that you're not going anywhere, that PBS is going to be around doing what it does, but also that this is an emergency. You know, whether you want to say it's a four alarm fire or a five alarm fire, this is kind of the testing moment short term and long term. So what do you want people watching this podcast to do?
- [38:00]
Paula Kerger
Well, I definitely want them to support their local PBS station. If they also want us to support pbs, that's great too. We have a foundation. But I think supporting your local station is, is profoundly important. I think this is a moment for sure that, you know, that, you know, we have a very short amount of time to try to figure out how we are going to manage moving forward in a very different environment. And again, having to make all of these decisions and you hope you continue to make good ones that will advance PBS. Obviously, we, you know, we've lost 21% of our budget. I have to make very difficult, difficult decisions right now of what I can afford to do in the near term or what I should push off or what are some of the things that we may need to stop doing that I hoped we would be doing at this moment. I mean, it's, it's a very complicated time. But I, you know, as I said before, I mean, we, we have always relied on the support of viewers like you. You know, we talk about this and we say thank you. We've always, you know, it's always been an important, it's been the key part. Look, I, you know, I've been, I told you earlier in this discussion that I started my life at our station in New York when I took the job at pbs. I thought that it'd be really important to travel around the country because although I had come from a public television station and two of my predecessors, my two immediate predecessors did not, I felt like I had a little bit of a leg up because I'd worked within the system, and I knew what it felt like and so forth. But I was in New York, which is an island off of the coast of North America, and people, you know, sort of identify New Yorkers as being somehow, I don't know, a little different. I don't know. And so I wanted to see what our stations were like, because they were all created, they're all locally owned, they're locally operated, they're locally governed. You know, it's very different, you know, media environment than, you know, that I think most people understand. When I took the job, people congratulated me on running these 330 stations. I said, no, it's backwards. They run me. I don't run them. So as I started to travel the country and I saw what it was like to be in a community where there really wasn't any other local station besides the public broadcasting station, I realized the importance of it. One of the first visits I took was to Nebraska, the station in Lincoln. The guy who ran the station put together an event, and he invited supporters. And this guy. Guy came across the room. I watched him walk towards me, and he said, are you the lady they hired to run pbs? I said, yes. And he said, well, I just want you to know I drove two hours to come and see you. And he said, I live in the western part of the state, and I'm raising my kids on the farm that I was raised. And he said, I used to worry that they would somehow not have all the advantages living on the farm. He said, but we have you. And he said, I count on you. He said, I watch other things, but he said, I count on you for the information that you provide. And he said, I listen to NPR when I'm on my tractor. And he said, at home, my kids have grown up on your programming. And he said, and as you are in this job, he said, I want you to remember me and remember that for my family, you aren't a nice to have. You're in a state. And so I want you to also remember that you cannot mess this up. And so, as we've been going through this process, by the way, Newton Minow, when I first started this job, also called me to visit him in Chicago. And he, in essence, said the same thing. He said, you know, you can't mess this up. So I feel really passionate about the fact that for, you know, 60 years, we have been an important part of the fabric of this country. We have brought some of the great moments on television, but also these moments that bring us together. And I think Ken Burns is one of the best examples of that. His projects are so speak so much to the heart of who we are, and I'm not going to let that go on my watch. And so I'm determined that people around the country, if they care about the work that we're doing, if your kids grew up on public broadcasting, if you have fond memories of the work that we've done in the concerts and so forth, then this is our moment to step up. Because it really does matter. It really does matter. And it matters in every community across this country. And we've got to make sure that this stays strong.
- [42:45]
Charlie Sykes
Paula Kerger, thank you so much for joining me. Paula is the CEO and president of PBS in Difficult Times. And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. You know why we do this, why we continue to do this through thick and thin? Because now it is now more than ever, it's important to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones.
- [43:20]
Connect Industrial Intelligence Announcer
Imagine the merging of trusted intelligence into a unified experience. Imagine collaboration amongst teams and across continents. Imagine an empowered ecosystem designed to deliver actionable insights that inspire growth and sustainability. That's the power of the Connect Industrial intelligence platform to help you see further, innovate faster, accomplish more. That's the Connect effect. Learn more@thatsteconnecteffect.com Did I talk too much?
- [43:51]
Warby Parker Announcer
Can't I just let it go?
- [43:53]
Paula Kerger
Thank you so much.
- [43:56]
BetterHelp Announcer
Take a breath. You're not alone. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals. Get matched with a therapist online based on your unique needs and get help.
- [44:06]
Connect Industrial Intelligence Announcer
With everyday struggles like anxiety or managing tough emotions.
- [44:10]
BetterHelp Announcer
Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy and let life feel better.
- [44:23]
Boost Mobile Announcer
If this back to school season talking to your teenager sounds like this.
- [44:29]
Charlie Sykes
With.
- [44:30]
Boost Mobile Announcer
Boost Mobile, make it sound like this. Come to your Boost store, get a line and take home a tablet for only $99.99.
- [44:38]
Warby Parker Announcer
Perfect.
- [44:39]
Boost Mobile Announcer
Perfect for staying connected and studying anywhere they're happy and you safe. Visit your nearest booth. Store requires ID verification, new $20 per month tablet plan and $35 device setup fee. Taxes extra.
- [44:53]
Grainger Announcer
If you're a custodial supervisor at a local high school, you know that cleanliness is key and that the best place to get cleaning supplies is from Grainger. Grainger helps you stay fully stocked on the products you trust, from paper towels and disinfectants to floor scrubbers. Plus, you can rely on Grainger for easy reordering so you never run out.
- [45:13]
Boost Mobile Announcer
Of what you need.
- [45:14]
Grainger Announcer
Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com or just stop by grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [45:23]
Warby Parker Announcer
What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost their designer quality is frames start at $95, including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.