When I was a teenager in the 90s an old guy took me aside and told me there'd be a day we get rid of public radio, and a day we'd have our final serving of affordable tuna sushi, and that after that, I'd be living in what he deemed the future.
One down.
Idk where you're living, but where I am, fresh tuna has gone from $16.00 a # to $25.00 a # in only the last couple years.
Public television and public radio isn't going anywhere, at least not anywhere any of the rest of linear media isn't already going.
Of course, if you live in a large metro the local stations will survive due to large numbers of wealthy and middle class benefactors. This is not necessarily so if you live in a typical red state middle size city or less.
Somewhat ironically a lot of the extreme cuts (this included) only serve to reinforce the status of major blue state metros as more desirable, since they have more resources available to fill the gaps left by federal austerity.
People in red states mostly watch PBS online. Linear media is obsolete and has been for a long time.
> Somewhat ironically a lot of the extreme cuts (this included) only serve to reinforce the status of major blue state metros as more desirable, since they have more resources available to fill the gaps left by federal austerity.
If the people in the red states aren't willing to pay for it, it would seem that they don't think it's desirable. Capitalism is funny that way.
I get that you're trying to say that the pie is smaller overall, but the principle still applies.
It's not that they aren't willing to pay for it. When you actually ask them, they often do support paying for these things.
> When you actually ask them, they often do support paying for these things.
Great! It isn't a problem, then. Again, capitalism is funny that way.
We have a capitalist economy, not a capitalist society. The government exists to fill gaps where the market fails. CPB is one example of this. USPS is another. People who look at these organizations like businesses are fools.
> We have a capitalist economy, not a capitalist society.
Last time I checked, "society" is a concept defined entirely by the behaviors and preferences of the people within it. You may want society not to be capitalist, but that's your opinion.
Public television and public radio stations are literally being shut down, now, as per the topic article. Any station meaningfully relying on CPB is done.
I'm sure they will, but public funding for my local NPR and PBS stations amounts to something like 5% of their budget; they aren't going anywhere. NPR and PBS as institutions are more threatened by the Internet than they are by this funding cut.
I don't support the cut, but I get the vibe that many people commenting on this thread don't know what CPB is.
OK, but iirc you live in a big city (as do I). This is gonna be a serious problem for people in rural areas, and as well as decline in broadcasting operations it will probably mean less quality news coverage of rural issues, and so fewer rural stories on big-city NPR/PBS stations.
Right, but drastically fewer people are consuming linear NPR/PBS content. My guess is that at this point most NPR consumption occurs via podcasts (maybe 60/40? there's still a big drive-time component, but podcasts eat into drive-time too!), and presumably an even sharper shift to the PBS streaming site.
Like, for elderly viewers, availability of linear media still matters (something I've learned tediously through serving on a local commission managing our cable franchise). But... that's basically it?
So, back to: this is not an existential threat to PBS or NPR. I think people think I'm being glib when I say the Internet is a bigger threat to PBS (as an institution called "PBS") than this funding cut. I'm not being glib.
> Right, but drastically fewer people are consuming linear NPR/PBS content. My guess is that at this point most NPR consumption occurs via podcasts (maybe 60/40? there's still a big drive-time component, but podcasts eat into drive-time too!), and presumably an even sharper shift to the PBS streaming site.
Is the source of that 60/40 more substantial than any part of your anatomy?
> Like, for elderly viewers, availability of linear media still matters (something I've learned tediously through serving on a local commission managing our cable franchise). But... that's basically it?
Ok so you hear from elderly viewers that they care about this content and because you don’t hear from anyone else you assume they don’t exist? Are you really satisfied with that conclusion? Is it possible other listeners just have less time to be involved? Have you reached out to get their thoughts? Why are you so willing to dismiss the elderly?
> So, back to: this is not an existential threat to PBS or NPR. I think people think I'm being glib when I say the Internet is a bigger threat to PBS (as an institution called "PBS") than this funding cut. I'm not being glib.
I do think you are being glib. I don’t care about the comparison you’re making and I think it’s incredibly shallow. By your own estimate this will negatively impact 40% of NPR listeners. The existence of a larger threat is no consolation.
Why do PBS and NPR need to compete with anything? This is a public good, not a competitive business. That’s the entire point.
Does this funding cut somehow help NPR and PBS generate non-linear programming or online content? Of course it doesn’t. This is a bad thing for NPR and PBS even if they continue operating in spite of it.
I know you're looking for someone to take the other side of the "these funding cuts are good actually" argument, but miss me with it, OK? Not where I'm coming from.
> public funding for my local NPR and PBS stations
Ah, so it's not going anywhere because it's not directly affecting your station. Got it. For many other people it is going away.
This will affect your station though. Lots of stations spent a good bit of their budgets on content from PBS and NPR. While direct federal sources aren't a massive chunk of their income, revenues from member stations is. This will impact the content your local public TV and radio station will get.
Is there any way to find out which stations will be affected, and by how much (e.g. proportion of budget)?
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/01/cpb-npr-pbs-corporation-pub...
Some stations will lose 2%, others 98%.
I'm sure we're going to lose a lot of hyperlocal news and current event programming in Shreveport or whatever, but those programs have tiny audiences (even relative to their media market). Most of what we think of as PBS and NPR programming is delivered principally over the Internet now, not via local broadcast stations.
The problem is hyperlocal news is what keeps local government accountable. The internet has starved these local newsrooms to the point where NPR was often the only one left.
Local news is a much bigger and grimmer phenomenon than PBS.
The people who voted for the politicians implementing this generally live in those areas, so I think everyone is getting what they wanted on the whole?
To be clear, I am not in favor of these cuts, but nothing is preventing state, local or private contributions from keeping these stations on the air.
Hate to say it, but... username checks out, I guess
I was curious about that as well.
Tuna, at least bluefin, is definitely not too far behind.
What's happening to tuna sushi?
Overfishing? 15% Tariffs?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913649