If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It

A new study on the trustworthiness of PBS fails to persuade.

Nearly universal support on Capitol Hill for the "big, beautiful bill" is a powerful reminder that Republicans love to run for office on a platform of cutting spending and then immediately betray that promise once they actually have the power to fulfill it. President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and most of the Republican caucus are working tirelessly to pass a budget that would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit. Virtually the only political figures remaining consistent in their opposition to increased spending are Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), and Elon Musk, who is currently venting his frustration with Trump on X.

Suffice it to say, genuine attempts to cut federal spending are unusual.

One bright spot, however, is Trump's move to cut funding to publicly subsidized media: National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Libertarians and conservatives have long wondered why the government is in the business of subsidizing news or children's programming, especially when that programming evinces a pro-liberal bias, as was obviously the case with NPR and its president, Katherine Maher. PBS may be marginally more defensible on its own merits, but in the year 2025, it is simply not the case that the channel is meeting some need that the market fails to provide for. YouTube is brimming with high-quality, free (i.e. advertiser-supported) educational content for kids. If Big Bird is a better product, let him stand on his two legs—people will pay to watch him.

Defenders of continued taxpayer support for PBS deploy all sorts of counterarguments. But one new development merits a response. A trio of researchers—Christopher Ali, Hilde Van den Bulck, and Jonathan Kropko—published their study, "An island of trust: public broadcasting in the United States," in which they argue that PBS is an atypically trusted source of information, and thus deserves continued public support. In a writeup of their paper, published by Nieman Lab—Harvard University's investigative journalism foundation—the researchers argue that "Americans trust PBS because it's publicly funded, not in spite of it."

"Very little seems to unite Americans these days," the authors write. "Trust in government and public institutions is precipitously low. PBS bucks this trend. It is an 'island of trust' in an ocean of what some call 'post-trust' and others call 'post-truth.' It can be the focal point for a renewed spirit of American public discussions, a commitment to journalism, and a platform to recultivate trust."

One issue: The study measured trust in PBS, not among all Americans, but among viewers of PBS. That was the sample: survey respondents who themselves watch PBS. This is hardly a surprising finding—and is not whatsoever grounds for public funding. Regular viewers of Fox News, for instance, place very high levels of trust in Fox News. Does that mean all Americans do? Does it mean that Fox News should receive public funding? One doubts that the researchers would agree with such an argument. In any case, they did not respond to a request for comment.

For more on Trump's efforts to defund NPR and PBS, read Reason's Jesse Walker.

This Week on Free Media

I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Elon Musk's understandable outrage over Nazi-salute double standards, the attack on Jewish demonstrators in Colorado, Joy Behar's brilliant campaign advice, Stephen Miller clashing with CNN, and Joe Rogan vs. Bono on the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Worth Watching

I'm waiting to get my Nintendo Switch 2 until I have more free time on my schedule. Right now, I am playing the Mega Man X Legacy collection, which includes the first four games. I've loved these games since I was a kid, though I had forgotten how steep the difficulty curve is. X-1 is pretty easy overall, but I don't understand how you could possibly find all the hidden power-ups in 2 and 3 without help. I've beaten them before, and I still don't remember where to find everything.

Comments

[Thoritsu]

Precisely!

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

‘One issue: The study measured trust in PBS, not among all Americans, but among viewers of PBS. That was the sample: survey respondents who themselves watch PBS.’

So? You think elites should ask peasants whether to trust elites? Next you’ll suggest that elites should ask peasants (and peasant scientists) about trusting The Science.

[hpearce]

As I see it, the big problem with @reason is the failure to integrate libertarian principles/ideology in with its pragmatic position

I consider that a FAILURE

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Was a committed fan of PBS for twenty + years; by 2014-5 their bias become insufferable that, like many others, I dropped them. Now they are left preaching to their ever contracting demographic of tote bag carriers and crazy cat ladies. Cut ’em, and let them eat their cats and spend their money on their preferred media hallucinogen.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Same here. Don’t know that I ever “trusted” NPR but I listened regularly. I was stunned by the meltdown when Trump was elected in 2016. I have no problem with political criticism but it was completely irrational and frankly bizarre. It soon became obvious that this was standing editorial policy and infected pretty much all of the programming not unlike Reason in that time frame and beyond. Haven’t consumed any public programming for the past nine years.

[MasterThief]

I thought they were already bad in the 2000s and became full blown democrat cheerleaders under Obama. Trump did seem to spark a change where they didn’t even pretend to play it fair and became unhinged and brazenly dishonest.

[sarcasmic]

Without reading the article I agree with the headline.

[MollyGodiva]

Public financing of the arts goes back thousands of years, and in many cases the art is all that is left of entire civilizations. To cut public PBS funding because of a short sighted hatred of government hurts the US in both the short and long run.

[sarcasmic]

PBS funding is based upon the idea that they will set up broadcast towers where it would be unprofitable, giving people in remote areas access to basic news and other information.

Now, with the internet being so ubiquitous, it’s no longer justified.

[Don't look at me! (Not signed with autopen)]

..and in many cases the art is all that is left of entire civilizations.

Maybe if they were doing something productive, they would still be around.

[Ajsloss]

Establishment, establishment, you always know what’s best.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

That’s how the elites, and elite wanna-bees, roll.

[Rossami]

No, private financing of the arts has a long tradition.

Now, I will concede that for most of that history, the funding mostly came from the ruling elites but that’s because the rest of the population were subsistance farmers and others who couldn’t fund the arts if they wanted to. But the fact that a bunch of rich aristocrats individually chose to patronize the arts does not turn that patronage into an act of government.

[Piru]

Calling the content on PBS as “ART” used to be true, now, it is just indoctrination. If you want it, pay for it.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

No, you statist retard.

Rich benefactor funding of the arts goes back thousands of years. I suppose if you want to consider the royal treasury or the church coffers as public, you might be half right.

No libertarian supports forcing taxes from people to pay for “art”. Fuck the socialist starving artist funding systems, like with all the public projects, including roads, that have some percentage earmarked for some retarded sculpture.

[Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025]

Tony, when government funds the arts, the government ends up deciding what is art.

I suppose that’s desirable to you, as long as democrats decide, right?

[Sir Chips Alot]

if you want to fund the “arts” go for it. Leave me the fuck out of it.

[Think It Through]

Particularly grating are the public appeals (commercials) on PBS and NPR asking the public to continue to support public funding. It seems circular….use airtime provided by public funding, to ask for continued public funding, in the face of the desire of elected representatives to cut the public funding.

[KARayate kid]

NPR is mostly socialist propaganda, so it shouldn’t get a red cent from the taxpayers. If individual states want to fund that kind of nonsense that’s up to them, but NPR and PBS need to go.

There are a few shows my state’s public broadcasting does that I enjoy, but most of what they show needs to go.

[Rick Stewart]

PBS should be turned into a member owned co-operative, with users (listeners) as its members. No other corporate structure will serve its purpose so well.

That’s what credit unions are, that’s what Rural Electric Co-operatives are, and that’s what rural telephone co-operatives are.

They all seem to be doing fairly well.

[NCMB]

This^

[AT]

It never occurred to me until now that Sesame Street is Section 8 Housing, isn’t it.

[CountmontyC]

Had to open with an unrelated to the article anti-Trump tirade before basically agreeing with the Trump Administration on PBS didn’t you Robbie?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Long TDS.

[damikesc]

Always thought the X Series were easier than the mainline Mega Man games, but they are no joke. Not sure how anybody can remotely 100% those things without considerable outside aid.

[mad.casual]

mainline Mega Man games

Tried playing the Zero/ZX arc(s), I don’t know if it was the way the “Legacy” games were fitted together for it or whether it’s the games themselves but, as Mega Man games, they were unplayable by my standards. Maybe it’s the intent and I’m out of the loop, but it’s much more like “Mega Man RPG” and, Japanese-style RPGs where the sequel is essentially a different character with the same name, shield, and sword.

[MasterThief]

Air America failed because NPR already did the same thing but with public funding