Your Feedback

I know there is real and present danger of PBS & NPR being defunded. Please don’t ignore this on your website. We need you to tell us what we can do to help—what our letters and calls to our legislators should say. And not everyone is on social media. Please do this! I think we are all at a loss right now with regard to CONCRETE THINGS WE CAN DO. Please don’t keep us in the dark right now about losing public radio & television.

To: Head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)

Subject: Proposal for a Self-Sustaining Public Broadcasting Model

Dear Patricia de Stacy Harrison,

I am reaching out with a proposal for ensuring the long-term sustainability of public broadcasting—NPR, PBS, and local member stations—without reliance on federal funding. Given the current funding environment, this approach would allow CPB to continue supporting rural and small-market stations while making NPR and PBS fully independent of government funding.

Key Plan Summary

1. Replace the $100 Million Federal Shortfall with Modest Subscriber Increases NPR and PBS combined reach over 122 million people (adjusting for overlap). If just 10% of those listeners/viewers were active subscribers, they would number 12.2 million. To replace the $100M loss, each would need to contribute only $8.20 per year (about $0.68 per month). This keeps public broadcasting free of government influence while maintaining financial stability.

2. Create a CPB-Managed “Public Broadcasting Fund” for Rural Stations A percentage of the newly raised funds (e.g., 30-40% or $30M–$40M annually) would be funneled through CPB to keep rural/small-market stations operational. CPB remains an independent distributor of private contributions rather than relying on federal tax dollars.

3. Require Larger Urban NPR/PBS Stations to Contribute a Portion of Revenue Major urban stations (WNYC, KQED, WBUR, etc.) have more corporate sponsorships and wealthier donor bases. These stations would contribute a small portion (e.g., 5–10%) of their increased private revenue to support smaller stations.

4. Offer a “Support Rural Stations” Option for Donors NPR and PBS could add a checkbox when donors contribute, allowing them to direct funds specifically toward rural public broadcasting. This engages the audience in sustaining small-market journalism and education programming.

5. Allow Large Stations to “Sponsor” Rural Counterparts Larger urban stations could partner with rural stations (e.g., WNYC supporting a small station in Wisconsin). A portion of listener contributions from urban areas would directly fund rural operations.

Benefits of This Model

✔️ Eliminates need for federal funding, ensuring full independence from political influence.

✔️ Keeps rural stations funded through CPB-managed private redistribution.

✔️ No drastic donor increase required—just $8.20 per year per active subscriber.

✔️ Strengthens the public broadcasting system by leveraging existing audience loyalty and funding.

This approach ensures that public broadcasting remains strong, accessible, and truly independent. I would love to discuss this further and explore how CPB could structure this transition effectively. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

J**n L****n M*****n, Wisconsin j******n@yahoo.com

Where are the voices warning us that this is far more than business as usual? That we are in the midst of a Consistutional crisis? That the efforts through the courts are placeholders giving citizens time to take action to preserve their democracy? During Trump I, people and groups like Indivisible and Norm Eisen were covered by NPR. Not so in Trump II. The people need to hear their voices again. When I search the word coup on NPR, only foreign countries come up, yet that word is being used by reputable folks to describe what is happening now in the US. That is unprecedented, yet you, supposedly professional journalists, are not covering this aspect. Where is the full coverage? Where are the amazingly undemocratic quotes by Republicans? By Trump? By Musk? Where is Heather Cox Richardson’s voice, or Joyce Vance’s, or Bernie Sander’s, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’? Robert Reich’s? Where is the interview of Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way who authored the thoughtful article in Foreign Affairs entitiled The Path to American Authoritarianism? Where is your coverage of our situation by foreign journalists? Is that also as watered down as yours? What is the importance of Volodymyr Zelensky’s urging European leaders to accept that automatically assuming there will be US support is no longer valid. What does it mean that Trump said the Ukraine may be part of Russia someday and Vance did not rule out US troops there? What could that mean? How can you resist connecting those potential dots? What you’re doing is not journalistic neutrality, it is jouranlistic fear. As I understand it, journalists pair fear with courage for an essential reason. This is a scary moment, but it’s one journalists should be drawn to. It’s the biggest story of your lives (of our lives). It’s the second biggest story in US history (the Revolutionary War being the first). Thorough journalism is a pillar of democracy for a reason. We all do this together, or we’re all done until the next opportunity for a revolutionary war, if it ever comes again, because, as you know, the circumstances were just right for us to win the first one. The odds were completely against us; we shouldn’t have won. And if the media is not doing their job completely in the current long odds, we won’t win, and real journalism will go away. Crack this open while there is still time to do so. Go ahead and include the complete Democratic chaos and wobbly response. Go ahead and interview those who wonder what the next steps will be even if we manage to shut this coup down anytime soon, because Democrats are as responsible for getting us here as Republicans. And what about my local station, KLCC? I’ve heard nothing about Merkley’s and Wyden’s jam packed townhalls. Nothing about what our representatives are doing to push back or hold other legislators accountable. I’ve heard no local stories asking hard questions of Governor Kotek or Attorney General Rayfield how exactly they are acting to protect Oregonians. No coverage of the February 5th protest in Salem or the planned Presidents Day protests. No stories about our the scientists in Oregon research insitutions that are having to cut back on research and are considering the possibility of shutting down labs. Why am I having to suggest the possible stories? The possibilities are deep! People are terrified they’ll lose their Social Security, their Medicare, their retirement mutual funds, their child’s school, their libraries, their safety nets, their homes and their health. We have a homeless crisis. Is this making it worse or better right now in this moment? How about local commercial banks? Are they safe for consumers? How about VISA queing up to partner with Musk. Wonder if he’ll be fair, ethical and honest in that business deal? Is VISA the least bit concerned he might be untrustworthy to partner with or expose sensitive consumer information to? We are in a moment of journalistic feasting and I’m still hearing stories about moss (not making that up). While we need relief from the enslaught, we also need the truth — all of it. We need acknowledgement that this is not regular times, our feelings of fear are justified. Your reporting increases the surreal nature of what is happening. This is not a time for giggling on air. We need to hear in your voices both calm and deep seriousness. Don’t want to panic the public? Why not? Now is a time to feel panicked. And, do you really want to take on the task of deciding what the public can and can’t handle? Not your job. Please live up the the Public Radio I have known my entire adult life. Please match your journalism to the extreme moment we are in. I’ve seen some improvement this week, but not nearly enough. More please. Make it count! S****y W******n ***** K*****d St. Eugene, OR 97405