The FCC Should Support Public Media, Not Undermine It

ProximitySports
Written By Tim Hanlon

ThisisEngineering / @thisisengineering via Unsplash

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s investigation into NPR and PBS under the guise of scrutinizing sponsorship practices is nothing more than a pretext for undermining public media’s role in American society. Far from being a legitimate inquiry into regulatory compliance, this move appears to be part of a broader, politically motivated effort to destabilize and defund public broadcasting—an essential pillar of civic life and informed democracy. 

For decades, NPR and PBS have provided Americans with noncommercial educational programming, emergency alerts, and vital local journalism. Their mission is not to turn a profit or pander to corporate interests, but to serve the public good. The rules governing sponsorships, known as underwriting, are clear: public broadcasters can acknowledge financial contributions, but they cannot air traditional commercials. NPR and PBS have been meticulous in adhering to these guidelines, and the FCC’s own evolving stance on underwriting has allowed public media to reduce its reliance on taxpayer dollars. Despite this, Carr’s investigation questions not just the legality of their practices but the very notion of public funding for these organizations—an issue that goes far beyond the scope of sponsorships. 

Let’s be clear: this is not about enforcing FCC rules. If it were, Carr would not have used the investigation as a platform to voice his opinions on defunding public media entirely. In doing so, he effectively abandoned any pretense of impartiality. His remarks about taxpayer dollars being used to “support a for-profit endeavor” are especially disingenuous, given that public broadcasters explicitly operate as noncommercial entities. Statements like these are not just misleading—they are an attempt to weaponize regulatory authority to score ideological points. 

The timing of Carr’s investigation is also suspect. It follows years of attacks on public broadcasters by allies of former President Trump, who frequently and falsely characterized NPR and PBS as partisan entities. These attacks have created a hostile environment for public media, forcing stations to brace for financial “worst-case scenarios,” as noted in this publication. The investigation is not occurring in a vacuum; it is part of a larger campaign to delegitimize news outlets that provide fact-based reporting free from corporate or political control. 

Carr’s approach also risks eroding the FCC’s integrity. His Democratic colleagues on the commission, Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks, have rightly expressed concerns about the weaponization of the FCC’s power. Gomez’s warning that the investigation could be politically motivated and Starks’s “serious concern” point to the dangerous precedent being set. Regulatory agencies like the FCC are supposed to operate as neutral arbiters of the public interest. Carr’s overtly partisan actions undermine this principle, further polarizing a regulatory body that should be above the fray of political combat. 

Public media has always faced challenges in balancing its mission with funding constraints, but NPR and PBS have consistently risen to the occasion. Their innovative use of underwriting allows them to secure crucial financial support while maintaining compliance with federal regulations. As Eric Nuzum, a former NPR executive, has explained, underwriting is worlds apart from traditional advertising: it provides basic acknowledgments of financial backers, not free rein for sponsors to promote their products or agendas. Carr’s attempt to conflate the two is either willfully ignorant or deliberately dishonest. 

Perhaps most troubling is the chilling effect this investigation could have on journalism. Public broadcasters are already navigating a precarious financial landscape, and the threat of regulatory reprisals adds an unnecessary layer of uncertainty. Seth Stern from the Freedom of the Press Foundation aptly observed that Carr’s actions seem designed to create a legal pretext for interfering with public media. If the FCC can target NPR and PBS today, what’s to stop future administrations from weaponizing government oversight to silence other media outlets? 

At its core, this investigation is not about sponsorships or underwriting rules. It is about power—the power to intimidate, destabilize, and ultimately silence voices that provide a public service free from the dictates of profit or political agendas. Carr’s actions are a betrayal of the FCC’s mandate to serve the public interest. Americans should see this for what it is: a thinly veiled assault on the values of transparency, accountability, and informed citizenship that public media represents. 

Instead of targeting NPR and PBS, we should be celebrating their contributions to our democracy. If Carr is truly concerned about the public interest, he would do well to stop pandering to partisan forces and start supporting the institutions that keep the American public informed and engaged. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Tim Hanlon

Tim Hanlon is the Founder & CEO of the Chicago-based Vertere Group, LLC – a boutique strategic consulting and advisory firm focused on helping today’s most forward-leaning media companies, brands, entrepreneurs, and investors benefit from rapidly changing technological advances in marketing, media and consumer communications.

Previous

Fox Launches A Streaming App, Dončić And RSN Troubles
Next

Surprise! Disney’s Bob Iger Calls Linear Networks An Asset