Op-Ed: A Realistic Look At Public Media Cuts And Emergency Communications.

The recent report from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) warning that federal funding cuts to public broadcasting could leave “millions in the dark” during emergencies deserves serious attention, but also sober scrutiny. While it’s true that public media plays a role in emergency communications in many communities, especially rural ones, the narrative presented in the report and surrounding commentary overstates the risks and overlooks the full landscape of modern emergency response infrastructure.

Let’s carefully address the key claims and then take a step back to consider a broader, more balanced perspective on the issue.

Claim: 112 public stations are at risk of shutting down if federal funding is withdrawn.

Reality: While funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is essential for many local stations, especially those in rural or underserved areas, it represents only about 15% of the average public broadcaster’s annual budget, according to CPB’s own data. Many of the largest and most resource-rich public media outlets (such as WGBH in Boston, WNYC in New York or KQED in San Francisco) receive a far smaller percentage from federal appropriations and rely primarily on member donations, corporate underwriting, private foundation grants and state/local support.

The stations most affected would likely be small-market or rural outlets. That is a real concern, but saying 112 stations are at “imminent” risk of closure is speculative without deeper financial context or examination of operational alternatives. Many of these stations can and do adapt through creative fundraising, partnerships and community support.

Claim: These cuts will jeopardize Emergency Alert System (EAS) readiness and the ability to transmit emergency information.

Reality: Yes, public broadcasters play a supporting role in the national emergency infrastructure. The Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS) and PBS Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) are components of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). But they are not the only channels through which alerts are distributed, and, in most areas, not the primary ones.

FEMA’s IPAWS includes not only public radio and TV, but also commercial broadcasters, NOAA weather radios, satellite systems, and most importantly, wireless emergency alerts (WEAs) delivered directly to mobile phones. According to FEMA, WEAs are now the fastest and most widespread method of alert distribution, reaching Americans where they are, on their phones, in real time.

While PRSS and PBS WARN offer helpful redundancy and coverage in some regions, the loss of these systems would not leave communities entirely in the dark. It’s one layer in a multifaceted emergency network.

Claim: Public broadcasters are irreplaceable during disasters, especially in rural areas.

Reality: This is partially true. In some rural or mountainous regions, public radio or TV may be one of the few consistent sources of broadcast information. But this isn’t a justification for maintaining the entire current public media funding structure, it’s an argument for investing smartly in targeted infrastructure and local partnerships.

In many areas, community-based low-power FM stations, tribal media, and regional commercial stations also play important roles. Supporting those entities, or modernizing rural emergency infrastructure through broadband, cell tower expansion, or satellite communication, may offer more lasting, scalable solutions than sustaining outdated broadcast dependency.

Claim: Rescinding public broadcasting funds “defies the will of the American people.”

Reality: There is strong public support for PBS and NPR. Surveys regularly show Americans trust and appreciate their programming. However, support for a service is not the same as unlimited public funding for it. Every part of the federal budget is under scrutiny amid record-high deficits, now surpassing $34 trillion.

CPB appropriations have historically enjoyed bipartisan backing, and any cuts should be weighed carefully. But debating the future of public broadcasting is not an attack on the First Amendment or on public safety, it’s a legitimate policy conversation about spending priorities.

Claim: There is no commercial or technological alternative to public broadcasters during disasters.

Reality: FEMA’s own public documents and emergency communications strategy suggest otherwise. Commercial radio, local television, mobile alerts, satellite, NOAA radio, and internet-based tools all make up the nation’s resilient and redundant emergency warning ecosystem.

Moreover, FEMA’s Wireless Emergency Alerts system is available on nearly every mobile device sold in the United States, and emergency alerts reach most Americans whether or not they ever tune into public media. While the contributions of public broadcasting should not be dismissed, they should also not be portrayed as indispensable when more robust and scalable alternatives are in place, and in some cases, more effective.

What This Debate Should Be About

Instead of framing any reduction as a doomsday scenario, public media leaders and their allies in Congress, like Sen. Cantwell, might consider how to strengthen public media with innovation:

• Target funding specifically for rural emergency communications infrastructure

• Encourage stations to diversify revenue beyond federal sources

• Create public-private partnerships to enhance local journalism and resiliency

• Support digital transformation that meets audiences where they are, on-demand, online, and mobile

Public broadcasting still has a valuable role to play in American civic life. But like every other institution, it must adapt to changing technologies and fiscal realities. Smart investment, backed by measurable outcomes and transparency, can ensure that public media continues to serve the public without clinging to outdated funding models.

Erik Cudd is a media professional with three decades of experience in broadcast journalism, programming, and public affairs. He supports strong, locally anchored public communication systems grounded in transparency, resilience, and modernization.