I’m a big fan of NPR and the quality of their journalism.
But it’s always struck me as odd that their frequent pledge drives suggest the ads they run don’t actually cover their costs.
In effect, each 30-second pledge driver must generate more revenue than a 30-second sponsor ad — which seems like a flaw in their revenue model, where donations are more valuable per minute than their core revenue generating business model.
It's brand advertising itself, precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.' NPR has navigated trust far better than average for the media. A quick search shows some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large.
When media runs non-stop pharmaceutical ads you obviously question their motivation when reporting on pharmaceutical adjacent topics, which are almost invariably neutral to positive. Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding, but if you saw an equivalent amount of annual advertising from the Waltons on NPR, you'd certainly be looking at those articles from a different perspective than somebody who's unaware of said funding.
It's interesting that this is the label you give for that behavior. A more optimistic take is this is just journalistic ethics. I guess it all depends on how much you trust NPR, but like you said "some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large". The nature of your description suggests you might be in the 46% and almost certainly in that 72%.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
donations from viewers don't come with strings attached, where as advertisers want content that is conducive to the agendas of the advertisers (which generally is something that enables their bottom line, more or less).
That is why donations are better, even if it makes less direct cash.
As corporate media demonstrates, depending on ads and therefore, corporations, inevitably leads to compromises in your news coverage. NPR has tried to avoid this.
“Yet they have compromised their news coverage by pandering”
Is this statement opinion or backed by data?
Either way, I’m not sure you understand the purpose of a free press. A free press gives all audiences an opportunity to find contrarian viewpoints in the media. That’s it. There’s nothing else because that’s all that’s possible.
There’s not some perfect state that exists where all media outlets (Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones) are perfectly neutral.
This is why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are so important.
PBS kids shows teach (sometimes via a heavy hand, I'll admit) things like acceptance of people of different skin colors and ability levels. There's a show featuring Inuits called Molly of Denali, not McKinley. Some of the characters are even LGB (not trans as far as I've seen). Sadly in the current world these concepts are considered 'political'.
That "heavy hand" is precisely what makes things controversial or political. For instance Star Trek has pretty much always been 'woke.' My favorite series is Deep Space 9. The captain is black, the second in command (as well as the chief science officer) is a woman, the chief medical officer is Mideastern, and so on. And then were are countless episodes that hit on all typical social justice themes, yet somehow these things were presented so 'naturally' that it all just felt very 'appropriate', for lack of a better term.
By contrast I was completely unable to watch things like Star Trek: Discovery (them choosing a title that would be acronymed as STD is already weird) because the identity politics were force fed so hard, to say nothing of 'Mary Sue'ism. It felt very unnatural and like a thinly veiled political rant. Back to PBS, Bert and Ernie - gay? I mean very possibly, if not likely. The creators say no, but they'd probably say no even if the answer was yes. And it's fine. It's introduced in a way that feels very natural, but when you suddenly start making such things overt, and one whose answer must be discussed and force-fed, it starts feeling much more like a political statement than just an inclusive context.
I'll certainly be letting my children watch old Sesame Street et al, but I think we'll be turning to things like Masha and the Bear for contemporary programming.
Bob Ross died 30 years ago, and Mr. Roger’s died over 20 years ago. Basing your argument on decades old examples is a pretty clear indicator of its merits.
“We” aren’t politicizing anything. Trump calls anyone reporting facts he doesn’t like politically biased. Reality is politically biased to him because it doesn’t conform to his pathological lying.
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
People often equate "Public" with meaning "middle-center" or "apolitical". Many would claim National Public Radio (NPR) is middle-center, politically-speaking.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
>continues to support the very medium that brought his joy and creativity into American homes
The message is more important than the medium. With the advent of the internet and platforms like YouTube it's easier than ever to get your video, your message, into the homes of America.
Imagine YouTube but publicly funded. No horrible AI targetted ads without any restraint. No monopolistic control over half the worlds viewing devices to control what's installed.
Sure, but PBS member stations also function as incubators, in addition to providing a platform. They provide (along with underwriting from 3rd party charitable institutions) artists/intellectuals/entertainers the upfront capital to produce their programming. YouTube isn't going to provide anyone with money upfront to make a show unless they already have a massive following. Mr. Rogers Neighborhood wouldn't exist if WQED hadn't taken a chance on a couple of 20 something's letting them produce Children's Corner in 1958.
It's certainly possible that's less necessary nowadays, given how cheap filming and creating video content is nowadays, but it's worth considering.
Youtube has incubated many multiples the number of creators than PBS member stations despite not providing upfront funding. Most creators don't start out from corporations or business loans.
When the way of consuming the medium changes, the message it carries changes as well. The reason public broadcasting is so well loved and "special" is that it was something collective (out of necessity). If I don't like charcircuit, I can find a youtube video declaring charcircuit a dangerous enemy combatant. When you are the only game in town, there was a sense of making it somewhat "casual" and we got things like bob ross and mr. rogers neighbourhood.
Wouldn't it be better to let those towers go dark, and await the public outcry, instead of temporarily hiding the effects?
The PBS affiliate stations in most need of federal funding are typically in rural, largely Republican areas. Let their own base tell the party they're not happy about being cut-off from their baseball documentaries and all the educational shows their kids watch.
Someone close to the administration could reopen them "in the interest of national security" or some such rubbish, isn't Larry's son in the media game?
PragerU shorts injected directly in to Sesame Street wasn't on my 2025 bingo card but its not the wildest thing I've seen out of the US this year.
But it’s always struck me as odd that their frequent pledge drives suggest the ads they run don’t actually cover their costs.
In effect, each 30-second pledge driver must generate more revenue than a 30-second sponsor ad — which seems like a flaw in their revenue model, where donations are more valuable per minute than their core revenue generating business model.
When media runs non-stop pharmaceutical ads you obviously question their motivation when reporting on pharmaceutical adjacent topics, which are almost invariably neutral to positive. Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding, but if you saw an equivalent amount of annual advertising from the Waltons on NPR, you'd certainly be looking at those articles from a different perspective than somebody who's unaware of said funding.
[1] - https://www.npr.org/search/?query=walmart&page=1
It's interesting that this is the label you give for that behavior. A more optimistic take is this is just journalistic ethics. I guess it all depends on how much you trust NPR, but like you said "some 54% trust in them, contrasted against 28% for the media at large". The nature of your description suggests you might be in the 46% and almost certainly in that 72%.
> And FWIW those millions the Waltons have given aren't that much relative to their overall funding
Contradict
> precisely to give the impression of 'being funded by listeners like you.'
Here you have one of the biggest companies in the country and one of the richest families and while they do donate they are still only a sliver?
Isn't that what we would want, or are there better models you can suggest?
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
That is why donations are better, even if it makes less direct cash.
Is this statement opinion or backed by data?
Either way, I’m not sure you understand the purpose of a free press. A free press gives all audiences an opportunity to find contrarian viewpoints in the media. That’s it. There’s nothing else because that’s all that’s possible.
There’s not some perfect state that exists where all media outlets (Fox News, CBS, Mother Jones) are perfectly neutral.
This is why freedom of the press and freedom of speech are so important.
Yes, the globalist elites of public broadcasting are trying to control you via Bob Ross, Mr. Rogers, and other sick folks. /s
It’s a sad state of affairs that we’ve found a way to politicize everything down to PBS and NOAA…
By contrast I was completely unable to watch things like Star Trek: Discovery (them choosing a title that would be acronymed as STD is already weird) because the identity politics were force fed so hard, to say nothing of 'Mary Sue'ism. It felt very unnatural and like a thinly veiled political rant. Back to PBS, Bert and Ernie - gay? I mean very possibly, if not likely. The creators say no, but they'd probably say no even if the answer was yes. And it's fine. It's introduced in a way that feels very natural, but when you suddenly start making such things overt, and one whose answer must be discussed and force-fed, it starts feeling much more like a political statement than just an inclusive context.
I'll certainly be letting my children watch old Sesame Street et al, but I think we'll be turning to things like Masha and the Bear for contemporary programming.
Also NOAA receives significant funding for climate change efforts primarily from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
PBS is unbelievably slanted; you just happen to agree with them in general.
Here is the CEO of PBS saying insane things about the truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYXrhOXkwU
"The truth is a distraction"
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
The broadcaster doesnt have to report that killing puppies is good once in a while!
If you know you know
The message is more important than the medium. With the advent of the internet and platforms like YouTube it's easier than ever to get your video, your message, into the homes of America.
Instead, public good free informational content.
Everyone would be shooting for their own gain and we would all be worse of as a result.
It's certainly possible that's less necessary nowadays, given how cheap filming and creating video content is nowadays, but it's worth considering.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3KEoMzNz8eYnwBC34RaKCQ
The PBS affiliate stations in most need of federal funding are typically in rural, largely Republican areas. Let their own base tell the party they're not happy about being cut-off from their baseball documentaries and all the educational shows their kids watch.
PragerU shorts injected directly in to Sesame Street wasn't on my 2025 bingo card but its not the wildest thing I've seen out of the US this year.