Should Congress defund NPR and PBS?

Current Events
1
Should Congress defund NPR and PBS?

pixlr-image-generator-e33a60e7-1c87-42b9-8398-0f59666fc3a1
pixlr-image-generator-e33a60e7-1c87-42b9-8398-0f59666fc3a11344×768 77 KB

Public broadcasting has long been seen as a pillar of education and balanced journalism, but its federal funding is now under scrutiny. As Congress weighs whether NPR and PBS should continue to receive taxpayer dollars, Americans are questioning whether these institutions still fulfill their original mission. Do they offer an essential public service, or have they drifted into ideological territory? Let’s hear your thoughts on whether federal funding for public media should continue.

#publicmedia #NPR #PBS #congress #defundornot #christianforums #crosswalkforums #forums #crosswalk #faithcommunity #faithforums

For years, public broadcasting has offered Americans everything from educational programming and in-depth news coverage to cultural documentaries and children’s shows. Supporters argue that NPR and PBS provide valuable, non-commercial content that serves the public interest, especially in rural and underserved areas. Critics, however, claim these outlets have become biased and no longer represent a neutral voice—raising the question of whether taxpayer funding should continue.

Is it time for NPR and PBS to stand on their own financially, like other media companies? Or does their public service role still justify federal support? And how do we decide what content qualifies as truly “public” and “educational” in today’s polarized landscape?

:movie_camera: Watch this video to hear one lawmaker’s pointed criticism

To learn more about the latest congressional debate, visit:
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/nx-s1-5339951/npr-pbs-congress-hearing

2

Yep.

They’ve been pumping liberal left bias for years, and it’s only gotten worse under this CEO.

87 Democrats on the Editorial Board. ZERO Republicans.

2 Likes
3

TOTAL NONSENSE! stop believing (and parroting) propaganda.

Public broadcasting should continue, even if Trump doesn’t believe in freedom of speech or of the press. Media control is what every dictator wants. They can’t tolerate criticism.

The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Obviously, Trump has zero regard for what the Constitution plainly states.

1 Like
4

Yes, defund them immediately.

  1. The free speech argument does not apply. Taxpayer funding for NPR and PBS is not a Constitutional right. The Government is not mandated or required to fund any such thing.

  2. NPR and PBS are perfectly free to continue pushing their agenda and exercising their right to free speech on their own dime, as other companies do. Private citizens are also perfectly free to donate their own money, if they choose.

3 Likes
5

Are you nuts???

THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE US CONSTITUTION

What other rights guaranteed by the US Constitution should be removed???
Are you being paid to promulgate Trump’s dictatorship?

6

One may have the right of freedom of speech but that does not mean I have to pay one for one’s message to be broadcast. One should be willing to broadcast on one’s own dime or raise the money from supporters to do so.

2 Likes
7

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.

8

Nevertheless, freedom of speech is not suppressed by someone who refuses to pay for another’s expenses to broadcast one’s message. If they’re message is so important let them raise the money necessary.

1 Like
9

Where does the Constitution guarantee the specific funding of NPR, PBS, or any other media outlet? Having the right to free speech does not equal giving out guaranteed taxpayer funding. Do you understand there is no mandate or requirement for the US government to fund any media outlet?

Based on your argument / logic, the government should be funding EVERY media outlet - including conservative ones - because ‘free speech’ and all. That’s clearly not how this works.

You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to expect the government to fund your free speech.

1 Like
10

If you can’t discuss the issue reasonably I feel sorry for you!

Obviously the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the specific funding of NPR or PBS, since they weren’t in existence in 1787. However freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Now, READ THIS CAREFULLY

The First Amendment safeguards the right of individuals and the media to publish information and express opinions without government censorship or interference. There is NO REQUIREMENT to “represent a neutral voice” or be unbiased. (Who determines those qualities?)

It doesn’t matter if you think that NPR and PBS should stand on their own financially, as that is not the issue.

11

There’s nothing unreasonable about my responses.

Which has nothing to do the OP issue. NPR and PBS are still free to publish information and opinions as they see fit. There is no censorship.

It is exactly the issue. NPR and PBS are not entitled to our tax money, period. There is no ‘constitutional right’ for any media company to receive funding. Funding can be removed at any time and for no reason whatsoever. All the arguments in the world will not change that simple fact.

12

Simply your opinion, with which I disagree. Is there something about “National” or “Public” that you don’t understand? They should be → publicly ← funded by the → national ← government. Obvious!

“Funding can be removed at any time and for no reason whatsoever” is totalitarianism and denial of freedom of speech.

13

  • Is funding media outlets and networks a constitutional right? No.

  • Are NPR and PBS necessary to government operations? No.

  • Does the government have the right to defund such outlets? Yes.

  • Should taxpayers be forced to pay for unnecessary and expensive media outlets that they may not even watch, esp. at a time the government desperately needs to reduce wasteful and frivolous spending? No.

  • Can private citizens continue their donations to keep NPR and PBS afloat? Yes.

  • Can NPR and PBS continue pushing their agenda if they are defunded? Yes.

  • Are NPR and PBS being censored and forced to shut down by the government? No.

Therefore no totalitarianism or denial of freedom of speech has taken place. Your accusation is not based on reality or facts. You can keep arguing, but the facts remain the same.

14

What is it about → freedom of speech <-, a right clearly defined by Article I of the US Constitution, that you fail to understand?

It has nothing to do with funding media outlets and networks.
It has nothing to do with whether NPR, PBS, and other media outlets necessary for government operations.
It has nothing to do with government funding.
It has nothing to do with taxpayers being forced to pay for media outlets that you may not choose to watch.
Wasteful and frivolous spending??? LOL!!!
It has everything to do with NPR and PBS being censored and forced to shut down by Trump’s government.

Trump is trying to shut them down because he cannot tolerate freedom of speech.

Your accusations are not based on reality or facts. You can keep arguing, but the facts remain the same. => Trump is trying to suppress dissenting opinions, a.k.a. freedom of speech, and violating the guarantee of freedom of the press. He is clearly violating Article I of the US Constitution. <=

15

If refusing to fund a broadcaster equals cenoring then wouldn’t you have to apply that to every other broadcaster that doesn’t get funding from the government? That they are being censored since the government refuses to fund them?

1 Like
16

NPR and PBS are still operating as usual, so that makes your statement above a complete lie.

PBS
NPR

18

In the age of information overload no need to bill taxpayers; or worse, compete with legitimate, radio business models, that pay taxes too.

19

Oh Benny, Benny, Benny… pull up a chair and a pocket Constitution, because you’re going to need both. Let’s get surgical.

First off: Article I of the Constitution? Really? Article I sets up Congress, not the press. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Those live rent-free in Amendment I — you know, the First Amendment. Might want to double-check your flashcards before you start lobbing constitutional grenades, champ.

Second, let’s get this straight: Freedom of speech means the government can’t prohibit you from speaking your mind. It doesn’t mean the government has to sponsor your megaphone with taxpayer dollars. Nice try, but “defund” is not “censor.” If PBS and NPR have something so vital, so irresistible, so essential to national dialogue, then surely their adoring fans can voluntarily pony up a few bucks, right? Isn’t that how the free market works?

Nobody is being censored when the government stops cutting them a check. That’s called fiscal sanity, not tyranny. Trump or no Trump, no one has a constitutional right to taxpayer funding for their opinions. Period. Full stop. Mic drop.

You want real “violations of the press”? Look at communist China, where reporters disappear into black holes for saying the wrong thing. NPR having to host a pledge drive because Uncle Sam closed the tap? Boo hoo. That’s just life without a nanny-state blank check.

Romans 13:6-7 reminds us that taxes are for necessary government functions, not subsidizing politically skewed bedtime stories and “gender unicorn” puppet shows. “Render unto Caesar” does not mean “fund Big Bird forever.”

So Benny, the facts do remain the same — just not the ones you’re selling.
Defund the fluff. Fund the essentials. Freedom doesn’t mean forced sponsorship.

1 Like
20

First off… If you want to discuss something with me, drop the pompous, know-it-all tone. Get it?

I meant to say that freedom of the press is guaranteed by the first amendment. Stop the flash card sarcasm. Champ? Do you think that tone is a Christian way to respond?

I have decided that if you want to discuss anything with me, you drop the sarcasm and snooty put-downs. It’s obvious to me why you’re a Trump supporter. You are wrong not only in what you say but also how you say it.

Apologize or live with yourself!

21

Oh Benny.

You took offense not because the truth wasn’t clear, but because it was. When the tone hits harder than the error it exposes, that’s usually conviction knocking at your door. Now, since you’re requesting a gentler approach, I’ll set the flamethrower to low heat, but I won’t be turning it off. Because truth doesn’t come with a mute button for fragile feelings.

Now let’s clear the fog:

1. You mislabeled both my tone and my allegiance.
I’m not here to prop up Trump, Biden, or Big Bird. I’m not wearing a red hat or a blue ribbon. My allegiance is to King Jesus, not political kings. As a citizen of Heaven (Philippians 3:20), I’m not here to cheer for presidents—I’m here to speak truth that convicts both parties, both platforms, and all palaces made of pride.

If Trump’s actions trample truth, I’ll call it out.
If NPR’s whining turns into taxpayer-funded propaganda, I’ll call that out too.
If you misquote the Constitution while waving the freedom flag in defense of bad funding policy, yes Benny—I will absolutely call that out, tone and all.

2. The sarcasm isn’t the problem—it’s the mirror it holds up.
You say “drop the sarcasm.” But sarcasm has been a faithful biblical friend—used by Elijah (“Maybe your god is on vacation?” – 1 Kings 18:27) and even Paul when facing stubborn legalists (Galatians 5:12—look it up if you’re feeling bold). When false ideas dress themselves in righteous robes, sometimes the only fitting response is holy mockery. Not to belittle you, Benny, but to strip the falsehood bare.

3. Labels are lazy.
You say I’m a Trump supporter. Based on what? A pushback on PBS funding? That’s weak sauce. The internet is full of pixel-sized judgments and mile-wide assumptions. Labeling someone you don’t know because they say something you dislike isn’t discernment—it’s just digital laziness. We don’t know each other’s hearts. But we can know each other’s words—and you should respond to those, not the straw man you’ve drawn around me.

4. “Apologize or live with yourself”?
I live with myself just fine, thanks. And I live under the conviction of Scripture, not the approval of online strangers. If I’ve sinned, I’ll repent. But calling out faulty logic and false accusations with sharp words isn’t sin—it’s obedience to 2 Corinthians 10:5, where we’re told to demolish arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God. Not massage them. Not validate them. Demolish.

So Benny, if you’re still up for a conversation grounded in truth, I’m here. Tone and all.
But if your demand for an “apology” is really just a muzzle for uncomfortable truths, then no thanks—I’ve read too much Jeremiah to fall for that trap.

You want respect? Then engage honestly. Leave the labels, pick up your Bible, and bring arguments, not assumptions.
Now… shall we get back to the actual issue of taxpayer-funded ideology dressed up as journalism?

Or are we still debating tone while the truth gets buried under PBS tote bags?