Defunding CPB: What It Really Means, and Why It’s So Complicated

When people hear the phrase “defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (CPB)” reactions tend to fall into one of two extremes. To some, it sounds like cultural vandalism—an attack on Sesame Street, Nature, and public radio. To others, it’s a long-overdue shift away from publicly funded ideological programming. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.

What People Think It Means

For many Americans, CPB is a symbol of educational, non-commercial media—radio and television free from ads, focused on learning, the arts, and community stories. The idea of defunding it can feel like turning off one of the last calm, intelligent voices in media.

But calls to “defund CPB” aren’t necessarily about shutting it down entirely. Instead, they raise a valid concern: if public broadcasting increasingly reflects only one side of the political spectrum, is it fair for all taxpayers to fund it?

Who’s Paying for What?

CPB receives nearly $500 million in federal funding each year, which it distributes to public TV and radio stations across the U.S. In theory, that funding supports neutral, educational content for everyone. In practice, many Americans feel that CPB—including NPR and PBS—leans left in both tone and subject matter.

NPR’s internal editor Uri Berliner recently said the organization had “lost America’s trust” by drifting too far into progressive narratives. Independent media watchdogs like AllSides also rate NPR and PBS as “Lean Left” in their editorial orientation. While public media doesn’t run partisan ads or push party platforms, its cultural and ideological tilt is hard to deny.

That raises an important question: if CPB programming consistently reflects liberal values—on gender, race, environment, and identity—should all Americans still be required to fund it?

Could CPB Be Reformed?

In theory, CPB could be restructured to be more politically neutral. But in practice, that’s extremely difficult. If you try to equally balance conservative and liberal perspectives, you risk making content so bland it pleases no one. And public media doesn’t survive on taxes alone—it also depends heavily on viewer and listener donations. If the programming becomes toothless, funding dries up anyway.

In today’s hyper-polarized media environment, trying to be perfectly balanced might be the quickest way to become irrelevant.

Propaganda or Cultural Drift?

Is this bias intentional? Probably not. More likely, it’s a case of cultural alignment. Most journalists, artists, and educators—especially in media—tend to lean left. That worldview naturally shapes the stories they tell and the tone they use. Over time, this creates an ecosystem where only certain voices feel heard, even if others are never explicitly shut out.

In that sense, CPB isn’t manufacturing propaganda—it’s operating in an echo chamber. And when those echoes are funded by everyone, some people stop feeling welcome.

What About Rural Communities?

One of the most cited defenses of CPB funding is its importance to rural America. But does the data back that up?

This is where things get tricky.

It’s true that rural public stations rely more heavily on CPB funding. For example, in FY2023, CPB provided over $147 million to rural stations—about 31% of its total funding. These stations often use that money to keep their doors open, especially in areas with limited local news outlets or cable options.

And rural Americans do consume more traditional broadcast media than urban ones. Edison Research found that rural listeners spend 43% of their daily audio time on AM/FM radio, compared to 34% for urban listeners. Over-the-air TV is also more common in rural homes, especially where cable and high-speed internet are scarce.

However, here’s the catch: there’s no definitive data showing that rural residents consume more CPB content specifically. And anecdotally, many rural Americans say they haven’t watched PBS or listened to NPR in years. So while CPB reaches rural areas, it’s not clear how many people are actually tuning in.

This leaves us with a fair and uncomfortable truth: CPB may be vital in theory, but underused in practice.

Could There Be a Better Model?

Rather than trying to make CPB everything to everyone, what if it simply followed the model of studios like Angel Studios—crowd-funded by the audience it serves? No taxes, no partisanship—just voluntary support.

This wouldn’t mean the end of educational programming. It would mean letting it stand on its own, and speak directly to those who care enough to fund it. In many ways, this could free public media to be more bold, more accountable, and more authentic.

What We’d Lose If It Disappeared

It’s also worth saying that CPB still does good. It supports early childhood education, classical music, documentaries, and independent storytelling. In places with no other local media, it may be the only source of community news. And when disaster strikes, public radio is often one of the most reliable sources of information.

But the world is changing. Broadband is expanding. Streaming is everywhere. And taxpayer-funded media can’t be exempt from hard conversations about fairness, transparency, and audience.

CPB shouldn’t be canceled—but maybe it shouldn’t be protected from criticism either. If it’s truly for the people, it needs to reflect all the people. That means being open to change, willing to evolve, and ready to ask the same hard questions it so often asks others.

Sources & Citations:

1. Berliner, Uri. “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.” The Free Press (2024)
2. AllSides Media Bias Ratings: NPR, PBS NewsHour
3. CPB Rural Station Support Data: cpb.org
4. Edison Research – Audio Listening by Region: Edison Research
5. NAB – Over-the-Air TV Usage: nab.org PDF
6. Pew Research – Internet Usage by Region: Pew Research Center
7. USDA Broadband Gap Info: usda.gov

Authored by J.M. Floto and A. Micus
05-01-2025