The unanswered questions following CPB’s closure announcement

Since 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has had the significant responsibility of delivering federal funds to America’s unique public media system. The two national broadcasters, PBS (television) and NPR (radio) produce content for a network of member stations, situated across the country. Seventy percent of CPB’s funding goes directly to the local stations.

Read more: CPB to wind down operations

On Friday, the CPB said it would wind down its operations after both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved a rescission bill that took away its federal funding. Despite a swell of support from citizens, other media outlets and an awareness-raising campaign on how to protect public media, it marks the ending of more than five decades of federal support for public media: emergency warning systems, physical and digital infrastructure, educational content for children and minorities, and more.

Patricia Harrison, CPB’s President and CEO, said the elimination of CPB’s funding would have “have profound, lasting, negative consequences for every American.”

Supporting education and a shield from influence

The CPB, as established in the Broadcasting Act, was tasked to ensure the universal access to free, high-quality and trustworthy content in America. Its mission was also to support the creation of educative and informative content through the distribution of federal funding to educational radio and television stations. It provided resources to more than 1,500 public radio and television stations across the country and was a vital financial supporter of broadcasters in remote and underserved areas.

Its status of nonprofit organisation, as well as the system by which it was operating – namely receiving an appropriation two years in advance to be distributed – was meant to protect public media organisations from direct political influence. However, with the CPB gone, by what means could future funding be distributed, if a future government decides to re-invest in public media? And without the CPB, might such investment be more vulnerable to political interference?

“Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,” said Harrison. However, without sufficient funding, maintaining the mission of PBS, NPR and all the smaller public broadcasting stations will become increasingly challenging.

A precedent that raises concern

There are concerns that the campaign led by the Trump Administration against public media and the gutting of federal funding could establish a precedent for other states, in a similar way to which the “Orbànisation” of Hungarian media sparked copycat movements elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

It could be said that the events in America are in some sense themselves lifted from Javier Milei’s own actions undermining and underfunding public media in Argentina. Both movements share a common libertarian rationale of a small state with limited public funding. Might the global influence of the US, however, have a greater impact, and give confidence to any political leaders keen to advance a defunding agenda?

Concerns arise especially with populist voices becoming stronger around the globe, and the necessity of public media taking up the centre of debates, even in countries known for their strong democracies, such as Canada or Liechtenstein.