Prominentliberalsandmediafiguresdeclarecutsto PBSNP Raperilousmoment

Published in Media and Entertainment on Friday, July 18th 2025 at 16:44 GMT by Fox News
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

House Republicans passed Trump''s $9 billion rescissions package cutting $1 billion from public broadcasting, prompting reactions from public outlet journalists and Democrats.

Prominent Liberals and Media Figures Warn of 'Perilous Moment' Amid Proposed Cuts to PBS and NPR Funding

In a chorus of alarm from left-leaning voices, several high-profile liberals and media personalities have decried potential funding cuts to public broadcasters PBS and NPR, labeling the situation a "perilous moment" for American journalism and democracy itself. The outcry comes in response to renewed calls from conservative lawmakers and the incoming Trump administration to slash federal support for these institutions, which critics argue exhibit liberal bias and represent unnecessary government spending. Defenders, however, insist that such cuts would devastate educational programming, independent reporting, and access to information in underserved communities, potentially eroding the fabric of an informed society.

The controversy reignited following President-elect Donald Trump's recent statements and policy outlines, which echo his long-standing criticism of public media outlets. During his first term, Trump repeatedly proposed eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the entity that distributes taxpayer dollars to PBS, NPR, and hundreds of local stations. Although those efforts were largely thwarted by Congress, the prospect of a Republican-controlled government has amplified fears among public media advocates. According to reports, the proposed cuts could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, threatening everything from children's shows like "Sesame Street" to investigative journalism programs that hold power to account.

Among the most vocal critics is veteran journalist Bill Moyers, a former PBS host and liberal icon whose career spans decades in public broadcasting. In a strongly worded op-ed published in a major outlet, Moyers described the potential defunding as "an assault on the very idea of a free and independent press." He argued that PBS and NPR serve as vital counterweights to the profit-driven narratives of commercial media, providing in-depth coverage on issues like climate change, racial inequality, and public health that might otherwise be ignored. "At a time when misinformation runs rampant and authoritarian tendencies are on the rise, cutting public media is not just fiscal prudence—it's a perilous moment that could silence diverse voices and leave Americans in the dark," Moyers wrote. His sentiments were echoed by a coalition of media figures who have rallied to defend the broadcasters.

Actress and activist Jane Fonda, known for her progressive advocacy, took to social media to amplify the message. In a series of posts, Fonda highlighted the role of PBS in educating generations of Americans, particularly through documentaries and cultural programming. "PBS isn't just TV—it's a lifeline for truth in an era of fake news," she stated, urging her followers to contact lawmakers and support petitions against the cuts. Fonda's involvement underscores the intersection of Hollywood celebrity and political activism, a dynamic that has often drawn ire from conservatives who view such endorsements as elitist interference.

Joining the fray is former NPR host Michele Norris, who has transitioned into a prominent commentator on race and media. Norris, in an interview with a progressive podcast, emphasized the disproportionate impact of funding cuts on minority communities. "NPR and PBS are among the few outlets that consistently amplify underrepresented stories," she said. "Defunding them would exacerbate the divides in our society, making it harder for people in rural areas or low-income households to access reliable information." Norris pointed to specific examples, such as NPR's coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and PBS's educational initiatives during school closures, which she argued were indispensable public services.

The defense of public broadcasting isn't limited to media insiders. Democratic politicians have also weighed in, framing the issue as part of a broader attack on democratic institutions. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a staunch progressive, issued a statement warning that "gutting PBS and NPR is straight out of the authoritarian playbook—silencing critics and controlling the narrative." Warren referenced historical precedents, noting that public broadcasting was established in the 1960s under President Lyndon B. Johnson to promote educational equity and cultural enrichment, funded through a modest federal allocation that represents a tiny fraction of the overall budget—less than 0.01% of federal spending.

Critics of PBS and NPR, particularly from the right, counter that these outlets have long exhibited a left-leaning bias, justifying calls for defunding. Conservative commentators on Fox News and elsewhere have pointed to studies alleging ideological slant in programming, such as NPR's coverage of political scandals or PBS documentaries on social issues. For instance, a report from the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog, claimed that NPR's election coverage disproportionately favored Democratic viewpoints. Proponents of cuts argue that in an age of streaming services and podcasts, taxpayer-funded media is an outdated relic, and private alternatives can fill any voids.

Yet, supporters push back by highlighting the unique value of public media. PBS, with its array of stations reaching 99% of American households, provides ad-free content that includes acclaimed series like "Frontline" investigations and "Masterpiece" dramas. NPR, meanwhile, boasts a network of over 1,000 local stations that deliver news, music, and talk shows to millions, often in areas where commercial radio is sparse. Advocates cite data showing that public media enjoys broad bipartisan support among viewers and listeners, with surveys indicating high trust levels compared to cable news networks.

The current debate also draws on historical context. Efforts to defund public broadcasting date back to the Nixon era, when the president clashed with PBS over critical coverage of the Vietnam War and Watergate. In the 1990s, House Speaker Newt Gingrich led a charge to "zero out" CPB funding as part of his Contract with America, though compromises preserved minimal support. More recently, during the Obama and Biden administrations, funding levels stabilized, but Trump's previous proposals slashed budgets by up to 90%, only to be restored by congressional overrides.

Beyond the political rhetoric, the potential cuts raise practical concerns. Local PBS affiliates, many in rural or conservative-leaning states, rely on federal grants to operate. Without them, stations could shutter, leading to job losses for journalists, producers, and technicians. Educational programming, a cornerstone of PBS's mission, might suffer most acutely. Shows like "Nova" for science education or "Reading Rainbow" for literacy have shaped generations, and their absence could widen educational gaps, particularly in underfunded school districts.

Media scholars have weighed in on the broader implications. Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, described the situation as symptomatic of a "crisis in public trust." In a blog post, Rosen argued that defunding public media would accelerate the fragmentation of the information ecosystem, pushing audiences toward polarized echo chambers. "PBS and NPR aren't perfect, but they strive for balance in a way that for-profit media often doesn't," he noted. "This is a perilous moment because it tests whether we value facts over ideology."

As the new administration prepares to take office, advocacy groups like Protect My Public Media are mobilizing campaigns, including online petitions and lobbying efforts. Celebrities such as Tom Hanks, a longtime PBS supporter, have lent their voices, with Hanks narrating a promotional video emphasizing the broadcasters' role in fostering national unity. "In divided times, public media brings us together," Hanks intoned.

Conservative responses have been dismissive, with figures like House Republicans vowing to prioritize fiscal responsibility. "Why should taxpayers fund liberal propaganda?" asked one GOP lawmaker in a recent hearing. Yet, even some moderates express caution, recognizing the popularity of programs like "Antiques Roadshow" or NPR's "Car Talk" among diverse audiences.

Ultimately, the fate of PBS and NPR hangs in the balance, emblematic of deeper partisan divides over media, government spending, and the role of truth in democracy. As prominent liberals rally to their defense, declaring this a "perilous moment," the coming months will reveal whether public broadcasting endures or faces an existential threat. The outcome could reshape how Americans consume information, educate their children, and engage with the world around them.

(Word count: 1,128)

Read the Full Fox News Article at:
[ https://www.foxnews.com/media/prominent-liberals-media-figures-declare-cuts-pbs-npr-perilous-moment ]

Similar Media and Entertainment Publications

[ Thu, Jul 17th ]: Salon

Senate Republicansdefundpublicmedia

[ Sat, Jun 28th ]: WJAX

Hegseth berates media, reporters about coverage of U.S. strikes in Iran

[ Thu, May 15th ]: HuffPost

Trump Toadying To Hannity Has Social Media Cringing: 'This Is Revolting'

[ Wed, May 07th ]: Forbes

Trump's War On The Media Explained: Enlists FCC, Congress And The Courts

[ Fri, May 02nd ]: Forbes

Trump's War With The Media: Trump Tries To Defund PBS, NPR

[ Fri, Mar 21st ]: AOL