S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman. On today's show , we'll talk about the recent ruling over NPR funding , media consolidation and wartime censorship. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. A federal judge last week struck down a central part of President Trump's executive order that targeted federal funding of public media. The district court ruling said it violated broadcasters First Amendment rights. We're going to talk about what the ruling could mean for the future of public media. Plus , check in on other issues shaping how you get your information. Joining me is David Loy. He is legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. David , welcome.
S2: Thank you. Great to be here.
S1: Glad to have you here in studio also. Dean Nelson joins me. He is a Point Loma Nazarene journalism professor. And dean. Welcome to you , too.
S3: Good to have you. Good to be on your show. Thanks for having me on.
S1: Good to have you , Dean. Um , so , David , tell us more about last week's ruling and what it means for federal funding for public media.
S2: The court held that although there was not an absolute right for the government to fund public media , if it chooses to do so , it cannot discriminate based on the viewpoint of the station or the network. This is fundamental First Amendment law. There's never an absolute right to have the government fund any kind of service , um , with with rare exceptions. But once the government chooses to do that , it cannot exclude certain individuals or entities from even being eligible to apply for that funding based on the viewpoint of their speech.
S1: This is a win for the First Amendment , for freedom of speech , right ? Talk about the broader implications with this ruling.
S2: It absolutely is. It affirms bedrock First Amendment law. This should never have gotten this far. This order was transparently unconstitutional. You know , the judge did note that Congress had the right to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , and that corporation has since dissolved. So there's no absolute right to have a corporation for public broadcasting. But that's not the only source of federal funding or potential source of federal funding to NPR or PBS. The opinion noted that the National Endowment for the Arts provides funding. Department of education provides funding. And , you know , NPR and PBS have to be able to remain eligible to apply for that funding on the same terms as any other organization or person that is otherwise eligible to apply. It's not an absolute guarantee of federal funding. But what it's what the court said has been quite clear under the First Amendment for decades , which is , you know , individuals or organizations cannot be , you know , categorically disqualified from even the opportunity to seek federal funding simply based on the viewpoint of their speech or the perceived viewpoint of their speech.
S1:
S2: So this applies across the board to any kind of government regulation or action.
S1: You know , Dean , I know you've been closely following the loss of federal funding to public media and what it could mean for the state of journalism.
S3: I mean , this this should have never gotten this far , but it's kind of like how the last year and a half has been since Donald Trump took office is he makes these proclamations , he commits these rulings through his through his federal agencies. And then it winds its way through the courts. And the courts finally say , no , that's not what the law says. And so , just from a broad perspective , this is one of those. Well , of course , that's , uh , what the ruling was. I mean , they surprised us. The courts surprise us every now and then. But this is just one more example of how the law finally is actually viewed at its face value. And the judges rule in favor of the law , not of political opinion. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Well , David , this ruling , you know , it was about President Trump's executive order on federal funding for public media entities like NPR and PBS. But Congress also voted on this issue.
S2: That's a big hit , obviously , and I understand stations and are trying to make up that deficit through other means of fundraising. Um , so as I said earlier , you know , the First Amendment does not guarantee an absolute right to receive this kind of funding at all from the government. But if the government does choose to make certain funding available , it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. So to the extent there are other federal government sources of funding to apply for , whether through NEA or Department of Education or what have you. You know , there's no absolute guarantee that public media would get that funding , but it's entitled to compete on a level playing field. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Well , speaking of competition , Dean , you know , recently the Federal Communications Committee approved a merger of two major players in local television , Nexstar Media Group and Tegna. What that that deal would actually encompass over 250 stations across the country. But there are legal challenges still underway.
S3: Fewer and fewer people are getting their information from broadcast television in particular. And so there's this is just a way to try to capture as much revenue as they possibly can. I'm not as concerned as some people are about this. Then being just one voice. That is , everybody's just going to have to mimic and mirror what the corporate heads are saying. That may happen , but that's not my concern. I would be concerned if it was Sinclair who was buying up all of these stations. They actually do that. So I just think this is a reaction to the economic reality of the state of news media. Mhm.
S1: Mhm.
S2: But in practice , consolidation , particularly in broadcast , does leave the media more vulnerable. It creates a single choke point. And if the government such such as the current chair of the FCC , wants to rattle the saber of FCC investigations or FCC subpoenas , that creates a chilling effect on broadcasters. And the fewer broadcasters there are , the more vulnerable they are to FCC pressure , and ultimately , the more vulnerable the public is to losing access to a diversity of viewpoints. I want to emphasize. And there's been quite a lot of reporting and analysis , the kinds of threats that the chairman of the FCC , Brendan Carr , have been making are transparently unlawful and unconstitutional. And he's been very cagey not to actually take action to revoke licenses. He's just sort of threatened to do so and threaten to intimidate people. Nice little station you got there. Shame if something happened to it , but without ever actually taking formal legal action. And I think he's quite clear and he knows I suspect I can't read his mind , but I suspect he knows that if he did take formal legal action , he would lose in court. And so. But the problem is that rattling the saber does create a chilling effect. And the more dependent those fewer broadcasters are on things like FCC approval , the more exposed they are. And so , unfortunately , as sometimes happens , they tend to self-censor because they're afraid of the risk , because sometimes the process itself is the punishment.
S1: And FCC is the Federal Communications Commission. Earlier , I think I misspoke and called it a committee , but it is the commission. Um , Dean.
S3: Could I could I add something to what David just said ? I David , David's just spot on. He's absolutely right that this can create a self-censoring , uh , kind of atmosphere , but I think it's at least I think it's interesting to note that this is not the first time this has happened. I go back to the the times when Richard Nixon was threatening this very thing over the Watergate coverage , because the Washington Post also owned some television stations. And so to try to , uh , to try to strangle the Washington Post , either economically or their actual coverage , they threatened this very thing with the the licensing of the television stations that the post owned. So this is this is what authoritarian governments do. This is not unique to Donald Trump or Brendan Carr , but it is what authoritarian governments do. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Speaking of which , um , you know , I want to talk a bit about the war in Iran. Uh , Dean , because it continues to be a major story here , and it's a story that the media itself has become a part of just before the show today. Trump held his first press conference since the U.S. and Israel launched their war. Um , during that press conference , he had some strong words for the media. He was reacting to reporting on a downed US jet in Iran and the operations to rescue the airmen. Here's a little bit of what he had to say then.
S4: So whoever do is we think we'll be able to find it out , because we're going to go to the media company that released it , and we're going to say , national security. Give it up or go to jail.
S1: All right. So , Dean , what what's your reaction to to just that alone ? We'll start with that. With that.
S3: That's just a here we go again. I mean , that was that happened during the Iraq invasion. This this this happens every time it happened in Vietnam. Uh , you know , they they may send somebody to jail , but then ultimately , as David has pointed out , somebody will figure out that's actually against the law to do what you did. There has there has always been a tension between national security and the public's right to know. And very , very rarely has the national security kind of line of argument won out. I mean , a reporter may go to jail for a little while , but ultimately that is not a legal option on on behalf of the white House. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. I mean , I remember a few weeks ago , Pete Hegseth in a press conference , conference , just sort of trying to encourage some media outlets to cover this war in a favorable way.
S3: Um , yeah. The same thing happened with Iraq. I mean , again , I've seen this movie. Jade , you're old enough. You've seen this movie too. So this is nothing new.
S1: Nothing at all. Nothing at all. Um , you know , before we wrap up here , because we've got just a minute left. Um , David , I'm curious. I mean , what do you think about all this ? And really , what gives you hope for the future of press freedom in light of all this.
S2: There are an extraordinary number of outstanding journalists doing incredible work to report the news without fear or favour , to speak truth to power. And that gives me hope that , you know , the , um. I don't have to tell you how Ordine you know , how battered the press has been financially and economically over the past 20 years. And yet there is an extraordinary number of journalists in all media broadcast , print , digital , podcasting , online , social media at all levels , local , state and federal , doing incredible work. And let's not forget , there's a lot of excellent journalism that goes on under the radar that doesn't make national headlines , that has an extraordinary impact at the local level. And so I am encouraged by the dedication to those , by those reporters to simply reporting the truth , telling the truth without fear or favour.
S1: All right.
S3: We should verify it. And that's why we need good journalists.
S1: And that's what we're here for. I've been speaking with David Loy from the First Amendment Coalition , along with Point Loma Nazarene University journalism professor Dean Nelson. David Dean , thank you so very much for this conversation.
S3: Thanks for having us.
S5: Thank you.
S1: That's our show for today.
S6: I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
