NPR’s headquarters. Photo Credit: Cornellrockey04
NPR and PBS are speaking out about the newly approved public broadcasting rescissions, emphasizing their possible impact on local stations.
Those reactions arrived after the House (once again) approved the rescissions package, thereby pushing it into the endzone. Extending to approximately $9 billion in overall spending, the measure is specifically axing $535 million in annual Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) funding across fiscal 2026 and 2027.
The CPB, in turn, provides grants to the likes of NPR and PBS. And as we’ve noted several times while covering the rescissions’ legislative journey, these grants account for a small portion of the entities’ annual budgets – to the tune of 2% for NPR and 15% for PBS.
Stated differently, neither is going away as a result of the clawed-back funding. On the other hand, both NPR and PBS have from the outset been stressing the rescissions’ possible effect on local stations.
Per the New York Times, as many as 180 local member stations may close due to the cuts, with up to 30% of nationwide listeners losing access to NPR. Of course, the latter stat doesn’t account for the option of consuming NPR content over the internet.
In any event, NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher in a statement decried the rescissions as “an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions, and an act of Congress that disregards the public will.”
“Two-thirds of Americans support federal funding for public media, and believe that it is a good value for taxpayer dollars,” Maher continued. (Technically, the two-thirds stat depends on the cited survey; some data has pointed to modest support for public broadcasting funding.)
Shifting the focus to local radio, Maher drew attention to possible operational fallout for stations serving rural areas.
“Supporters of defunding are fixated on NPR and PBS,” Maher relayed, “but in reality the cuts will be felt where these services are needed most. Stations in places like West Virginia, and those serving tribal nations, receive more than 50% of their budget from federal funding. Public radio provides local programming that would otherwise be unavailable — coverage of town councils, statehouse affairs, local elections, and local music.”
As mentioned, PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger joined in pushing back against the rescissions, criticizing them as “especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas.”
“Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,” Kerger continued.
Time will tell precisely what said hard decisions entail. More immediately, both NPR and PBS have placed the funding reduction front and center on their websites – also taking the opportunity to request donations. Consequently, “viewers like you” could potentially kick in a big portion of the $1.1 billion in question.
Longer term, as all present Democrat lawmakers opposed the rescissions, the entities’ strategy might involve holding out for a more personally favorable political landscape. But to state the obvious, it’s inherently difficult to predict when and whether this landscape will evolve in the desired way.
More generally, the wider situation could well change if, after certain stations do in fact slim or shut down, individuals in the affected markets adapt by embracing non-public alternatives (and/or the internet offerings of NPR as well as PBS).
Regarding emergencies, 98% of Americans own a cell phone, according to Pew, and authorities have been sending geo-targeted Wireless Emergency Alerts via mobile devices for a while now.
Content shared from www.digitalmusicnews.com.