PBS doomed?

Post Reply New Topic

I indirectly heard a rumor that Trump's team will defund PBS, which would effectively eliminate it forever. It actually came from the Hollywood Reporter's article on "Sesame Street" not being renewed for HBO Max, and many were speculating where it could go, since PBS still aired the show, albeit six months after the HBO Max episodes air. One comment stated that Elon Musk was going to defund public broadcasting, which led me to wonder if PBS has a future at all. I hope it does.

It looks like only around 15% of PBS' funding comes from government sources. The rest is funded independently, via private donations and fundraising. Trump could only "defund" that 15% they get from the government, but can't do much about the rest. Hardly the final nail in the coffin.

Why then does it seem like the media is saying that Project 2025 will eliminate it?

Yes, Project 2025 plans to eliminate the government funding for entities such as PBS and NPR. People likely fail to realize that the government is neither the primary, nor the sole source, of funding for these entities.

If one were to simply assume that PBS and NPR were purely government-funded, one would equally assume that the discontinuation of these funds would lead to the organization's demise. However, that assumption is not accurate, and would likely not have that effect.

Both PBS and NPR mention quite frequently during their broadcasts that they are largely funded "by viewers / listeners like you".

It will weaken them a bit, but it's still not the harbinger of their doom.

The Republicans have been targeting PBS and NPR since at least the time of Ronald Reagan.

Virtually ANY anti-intellectual group has been targeting NPR & PBS for as long as I can remember.

In 1991, Professor Daniel Rigney built upon Hofstadter to name three distinct types of anti-intellectualism:

• Religious Anti-Rationalism: Rejection of reason, logic, and fact in favor of emotions, morals, and religious absolutes.  When people learn to think for themselves, religious institutions find it more difficult to manipulate them.

• Populist Anti-Elitism: Rejection of elite institutions as well as those categorized within the social and/or intellectual "elite" (e.g., professors, old-money politicians).  As long as higher learning is achieved by only those who work for it -- with work being the operative word -- people less inclined to put forth the effort will consider higher education a privilege of the "elite" (e.g., wealthy white people with socio-political connections).

• Unreflective Instrumentalism: Belief that the pursuit of theory and knowledge is unnecessary unless it can be wielded for practical means (e.g., profit).  There is some merit to this, what with STEM courses making more material contributions (e.g., innovative and invented goods) to society than HASS courses.  However, there are some groups (i.e., Communists, Socialists, et cetera) who seem to believe that people should be trained only in the skilled trades, and only so far as to ensure that the tradespeople can remain employed.

Then there is also the general group of people who would rather watch professional sports all weekend long than allow their kids to watch even one NPR/PBS program.

Anti-Intellectualism sucks.