The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks

When money flowed more freely in television, public-service programming was seen as a means of giving back. From educational TV and supporting public broadcasting to cable operators providing C-SPAN, spaces existed where ratings weren't the yardstick — instead, this was TV intended to be good for you.
On Thursday, Congress took a major step toward undermining all of that, as the House narrowly approved a rescission bill that would claw back $1.1 billion in funding to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which helps support PBS stations, in addition to cuts to other programs.
The bill passed by the slimmest of margins, 214 to 212, with a few GOP legislators switching their votes to get it through. The funding was part of a larger $9.4 billion allocation that lawmakers had already approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Senate still has to weigh in on the matter, and has five weeks to decide.
With PBS and NPR besieged by the political right, with C-SPAN's funding via cable and satellite fees strafed by cord cutting, higher-minded alternatives have been hit by hard times.
The whole point of PBS and National Public Radio was that they would be unfettered by commercial demands, allowing them to offer programming — from children's programming like Mr. Rogers and 'Sesame Street,' devoid of toy commercials, to lower-key news, documentaries and public affairs — that didn't have to justify its existence on a balance sheet.
Ditto for C-SPAN, which cable operators carried for a small licensing fee simply because of the perceived value in allowing subscribers to see what their elected representatives were doing and saying, unfiltered and unedited.
Public broadcasting has found itself swept up in the Trump administration's war against the media, with the perception that any unflattering reporting about the president — whether from PBS' 'NewsHour' or 'Frontline' or NPR's 'All Things Considered' — reveals 'invidious' bias and a liberal agenda, to use FCC chairman Brendan Carr's favorite word.
Conservatives have long argued that public broadcasting represents an unnecessary expense given the abundance of choices available to most consumers. But in its latest incarnation, 'Defund PBS' overtly translates into being less about fiscal responsibility than leveraging the government's underwriting role to silence otherwise-independent media voices by labeling them progressive propaganda.
On the left, the response was unambiguous. The Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) condemned the House vote as 'a radical right-wing ideology that aims to destroy a non-partisan public service despite all evidence of its wide benefits.' The group quickly turned its attention to pleading with the Senate, which holds a GOP majority but has exhibited a bit more restraint than the House in prosecuting the MAGA agenda.
The CEO of PBS, Paula Kerger, remained silent in the wake of Thursday's vote, but she has been lobbying intensively to save PBS, warning that Trump's push to defund public broadcasters would spell the end for a number of local stations, and the service they provide to their communities.
In a recent interview with Katie Couric, Kerger contemplated the end of public funding for the network, which only relies on the government for a portion of its funds. 'I think we'll figure out a way, through digital, to make sure there is some PBS content,' she said. 'But there won't be anyone in the community creating local content. There won't be a place for people to come together.'
Kerger was referring to the fact that the campaign against PBS and NPR disproportionally harms smaller and more rural communities that voted for Trump (even if many listeners and viewers didn't), which lack the same menu of local-media options as major markets.
In a sense, Sesame Workshop — the entity behind 'Sesame Street' — has provided an unlikely poster child for the financial pressures on public TV, having undergone layoffs before losing its streaming deal with Warner Bros. Discovery's Max. Netflix has since stepped into the breach, joining with PBS Kids in providing access Elmo and his pals.
As for C-SPAN, its challenges stem primarily from evolving technology, which has dramatically undercut the financial model upon which the network was founded in 1979.
With viewers shifting to streaming and dropping cable and satellite subscriptions, the number of homes receiving C-SPAN has sharply dropped to a little over 50 million, meaning the nonprofit enterprise — which costs operators just $7.25 a month, a fraction of what they pay for channels like Fox News and CNN — is running at a significant deficit.
One proposed solution would be for entities with streaming subscribers, like YouTube or Hulu's live-TV package, to carry C-SPAN. Indeed, YouTube's 8 to 10 million subscribers alone would provide enough income to offset most of the shortfall in its roughly $60 million annual operating expenses.
Thus far, however, those companies have balked, prompting a rare bipartisan push in the Senate on C-SPAN's behalf, with Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Amy Klobuchar among those joining in a resolution calling upon streaming services to carry the network.
'For tens of millions of Americans who have cut the cord and get their content from streaming services, they should not be cut off from the civic content made available by C-SPAN,' the senators stated.
It's a welcome development for C-SPAN CEO Sam Feist, who joined the network a little over a year ago from CNN. Feist noted that 'cord cutting' doesn't accurately characterize what's transpired — since old cable subscribers have generally moved to new delivery systems — meaning the case for carrying the network remains as simple as the public-service ideal that inspired its launch.
'We're the only network that provides what we provide, which is this unfiltered view of American government,' Feist told TheWrap, adding in regard to the streamers, 'It is good for the country for their customers to have access to our product.'
The campaign regarding C-SPAN carriage has seemingly gained some momentum over the last year, with former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty among those joining the aforementioned senators in taking up the cause.
Wheeler called YouTube's decision not to carry C-SPAN 'baffling and anti-democratic,' writing in The Hill that the company is depriving viewers of 'an unfiltered window into the goings-on in Congress, the White House and other parts of the government.'
As Sen. Ron Wyden told Tumulty, carrying the network would only cost YouTube about $6 million a year — 'crumbs,' he suggested, for a streamer that rakes in billions in ad revenue.
YouTube has stated that its subscribers 'have not shown sufficient interest in adding C-SPAN to the YouTube TV lineup to justify the increased cost' to their monthly bills, although as Wyden noted, that would amount to a relative pittance of 87 cents a year per household.
The two situations aren't completely analogous, especially with the fate of PBS and NPR having become embroiled in politics, as opposed to corporate stubbornness.
More fundamentally, though, both situations speak to the question of civic responsibility, and whether the government and private interests acknowledge such obligations. Because even if C-SPAN and PBS reach smaller audiences in a fragmented world, certain things are worth keeping around not because everybody watches them, but rather for what they offer, symbolically as well as tangibly, thanks to the staid sobriety they provide by being available to the people that do.
The post The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks appeared first on TheWrap.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

15 minutes ago

• New York Post

Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons

Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who said in a post on the social platform X on Friday evening that he plans to sign the bill into law. If that happens, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Advertisement 3 Rhode Island's state House approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons. AP Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. Advertisement The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Advertisement Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. 3 Two men inspected AR-10s for sale at the Belle-Clair Fairgrounds & Expo Center Gun Show in Belleville, Ill. REUTERS Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. 'I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more,' she said. 'And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something.' Advertisement Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the US. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. 'We are throwing away money on this,' he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. 3 A crowd of gun-rights advocates filled the State House rotunda in Rhode Island in March to protest a proposed ban on the manufacture and sale of assault-style weapons. David DelPoio/The Providence Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images Advertisement Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. Advertisement The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.'

USA Today

26 minutes ago

• USA Today

Trump Mobile, gender care and the champion Panthers: The week in review

Floods ravage Texas, Appalachians Torrential rain and flash flooding in Texas and parts of West Virginia trapped drivers, swept vehicles away and pulled homes off their foundations, leaving as many as 20 people dead and communities struggling to recover. Thunderstorms over San Antonio dropped nearly 10 inches of rain in a matter of hours, more that double the amount of rain the area typically gets in all of June. Up to 4 inches drenched the Appalachian region, overwhelming creeks and waterways. 'It happened so quickly,' said Lou Vargo, Ohio County's emergency management director. "I've been doing this for 35 years. … I've never seen anything like this.' Court upholds gender care ban The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the transgender rights movement and a victory to the Trump administration when it upheld a Tennessee law barring gender-affirming care for minors. The ruling fell along ideological lines as the court's six conservative justices ruled in favor of the ban and the three liberals dissented. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the decision was a victory 'in defense of America's children'; Kimberly Inez McGuire, head of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, said the court chose 'cruelty over care.' Trump Mobile answers the call Yet another enterprise is getting the Trump name. Trump Mobile, a new cellular service, will offer the 5G '47 Plan' for $47.45 a month (Donald Trump is the nation's 47th and 45th president) and its own phone, the T1 Phone, the Trump Organization announced. 'Trump Mobile is going to change the game,' said Donald Trump Jr., who runs the president's conglomerate with his brother Eric. The gold-colored phone will retail for $499. Of course that's not the only venture in the Trump orbit: There's Truth Social and the crypto company World Liberty Financial, plus Trump Bibles, watches, sneakers and guitars. Steve Carell's advice to grads: 'Just dance' When Steve Carell is your commencement speaker, you should be ready for anything. The actor, who was presented with an honorary degree from Northwestern University before he spoke to its graduates, briefly turned the ceremony into a dance party as he bolted off the stage and into the crowd of delighted grads to 'That's Not My Name' by The Ting Tings. 'That was as invigorating as it was disturbing,' he told them afterward. His speech was not without some sage advice: 'Remember to laugh when you have the opportunity and to cry when necessary,' he said. And, 'just dance sometimes.' Twice is nice for the Florida Panthers Who said the Sunshine State is no place for hockey? The Florida Panthers netted their second straight Stanley Cup − and denied the Edmonton Oilers a second straight time − with a 5-1 romp in front of the home crowd in Game 6 behind a record-tying four goals from winger Sam Reinhart. The Cats join their brethren the Tampa Bay Lightning, who won back-to-back Cups in 2020 and 2021. As for Edmonton, falling short again was especially stinging: The last Canadian team to take home the Stanley Cup was the Montreal Canadiens in 1993. − Compiled and written by Robert Abitbol, USA TODAY copy chief

Miami Herald

33 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Europe's growing fear: How Trump might use US tech dominance against it

LONDON -- When President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February against the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigating Israel for war crimes, Microsoft was suddenly thrust into the middle of a geopolitical fight. For years, Microsoft had supplied the court -- which is based in The Hague in the Netherlands and investigates and prosecutes human rights breaches, genocides and other crimes of international concern -- with digital services such as email. Trump's order abruptly threw that relationship into disarray by barring U.S. companies from providing services to the prosecutor, Karim Khan. Soon after, Microsoft, which is based in Redmond, Washington, helped turn off Khan's ICC email account, freezing him out of communications with colleagues just a few months after the court had issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for his country's actions in the Gaza Strip. Microsoft's swift compliance with Trump's order, reported earlier by The Associated Press, shocked policymakers across Europe. It was a wake-up call for a problem far bigger than just one email account, stoking fears that the Trump administration would leverage America's tech dominance to penalize opponents, even in allied countries like the Netherlands. 'The ICC showed this can happen,' said Bart Groothuis, a former head of cybersecurity for the Dutch Ministry of Defense who is now a member of the European Parliament. 'It's not just fantasy.' Groothuis once supported U.S. tech firms but has done a '180-degree flip-flop,' he said. 'We have to take steps as Europe to do more for our sovereignty.' Some at the ICC are now using Proton, a Swiss company that provides encrypted email services, three people with knowledge of the communications said. Microsoft said the decision to suspend Khan's email had been made in consultation with the ICC. The company said it had since enacted policy changes that had been in the works before the episode to protect customers in similar geopolitical situations in the future. When the Trump administration sanctioned four additional ICC judges this month, their email accounts were not suspended, the company said. Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, said concerns raised by the ICC episode were a 'symptom' of a larger erosion of trust between the United States and Europe. 'The ICC issue added fuel to a fire that was already burning,' he said. Khan has been on leave from the ICC since last month, pending a sexual misconduct investigation. He has denied the allegations. An ICC spokesperson said it was taking steps to 'mitigate risks which may affect the court's personnel' and 'taking extensive measures to ensure the continuity of all relevant operations and services in the face of sanctions.' The episode has set off alarms across Europe about how dependent European governments, businesses and citizens are on U.S. tech companies like Microsoft for essential digital infrastructure -- and how hard it will be to disentangle themselves. Concerns about how else Trump might leverage technology for political advantage has jump-started efforts across the region to develop alternatives. Casper Klynge, a former Danish and European Union diplomat who worked for Microsoft, said the episode was in many ways the 'smoking gun that many Europeans had been looking for.' 'If the U.S. administration goes after certain organizations, countries or individuals, the fear is American companies are obligated to comply,' said Klynge, who now works for a cybersecurity company. 'It's had a profound impact.' The tech debate adds to an increasingly fractious U.S.-European relationship over trade, tariffs and the war in Ukraine. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have criticized how Europe regulates U.S. tech companies, and U.S. officials have made digital oversight and taxation part of ongoing trade negotiations. European regulators have argued that they need to be able to police the biggest digital platforms in their own countries without worrying that they will face political pressure and punishment from a foreign government. 'If we don't build adequate capacity within Europe, then we won't be able to make political choices anymore,' said Alexandra Geese, a member of the European Parliament. Since Edward Snowden's leak of scores of documents in 2013 detailing widespread U.S. surveillance of digital communications, Europeans have sought to diminish their reliance on U.S. tech. Lawmakers and regulators have targeted Apple, Meta, Google and others for anticompetitive business practices, privacy-invading services, and the spread of disinformation and other divisive content. Yet without viable alternatives, institutions across the region have turned to U.S. digital services. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other U.S. firms control more than 70% of the cloud computing market in Europe, which is the essential way for storing files, retrieving data and running other programs, according to Synergy Research Group. The ICC has been a longtime customer of Microsoft, which provides the court with services including the Office software suite and software for evidence analysis and file storage, according to an ICC lawyer who declined to be identified discussing internal procedures. Microsoft has also provided cybersecurity software to help the court withstand digital attacks from adversaries like Russia, which is being investigated for war crimes in Ukraine. In February, after Trump issued penalties against Khan, Microsoft met with ICC officials to decide how to respond. They concluded that Microsoft's broader work for the court could continue but that Khan's email should be suspended. He switched his correspondence to another email account, said a person who has communicated with him. Sara Elizabeth Dill, a lawyer who specializes in sanctions compliance, said the Trump administration was increasingly using sanctions and executive orders to target international institutions, universities and other organizations, forcing companies to make hard choices about how to comply. 'This is a quagmire and places these corporations in a very difficult position,' she said. How tech companies with global services respond is especially important, she added, 'as the broad repercussions are what people and organizations are primarily worried about.' Microsoft and other U.S. companies have sought to reassure European customers. On Monday, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella visited the Netherlands and announced new 'sovereign solutions' for European institutions, including legal and data security protections for 'a time of geopolitical volatility.' Amazon and Google have also announced policies aimed at European customers. Still, many institutions are exploring alternatives. In the Netherlands, the 'subject of digital autonomy and sovereignty has the full attention of the central government,' Eddie van Marum, the state secretary of digitalization in the Ministry of Interior Affairs, said in a statement. The country is working with European providers on new solutions, he said. In Denmark, the digital ministry is testing alternatives to Microsoft Office. In Germany, the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein is also taking steps to cut its use of Microsoft. In the European Union, officials have announced plans to spend billions of euros on new artificial intelligence data centers and cloud computing infrastructure that rely less on U.S. companies. Groothuis, the Dutch member of the European Parliament, said lawmakers in Brussels were discussing policy changes that would encourage governments to favor buying tech services from EU-based companies. 'The situation is not tenable, and we see a big push from European governments to become more independent and more resilient,' said Andy Yen, CEO of Proton. European tech companies see an opportunity to win customers from their U.S. rivals. Cloud service providers like Intermax Group, based in the Netherlands, and Exoscale, based in Switzerland, said they had seen a jump in new business. 'A few years ago, everyone was saying, 'They're our trusted partners,'' Ludo Baauw, Intermax's CEO, said of U.S. tech companies. 'There's been a radical change.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025