Shame on you, Johnson, Rounds, and Thune. Your weak refusal to stand up to Trump (again) hurts South Dakotans. You are complicit in the dismantling of democracy for the sake of pleasing an egomaniac who knows that securing his dictatorship requires silencing any media he does not control.
These are SD Stories and SD Voices that have been reduced or attempting to be "eliminated". I'm so proud of SDPB and all the important information that they provide. Please, if you are not a donor already, reach out to them. We are in great risk of news and information becoming more and more skewed. We need real conversations such as those that Lori Walsh provides on In the Moment.
What examples do you have of SD Public Broadcasting being so political? I was recently on In The Moment talking about food waste and food recovery on In The Moment. These are stories that need to be told. What fire did they play with? Please can you give us some examples?
The statement at the end of this reply by the President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is in clear contradiction to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
Subpart D — Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Sec. 396. [47 U.S.C. 396] Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(c) Board of Directors; functions, duties, etc.
(1) The Corporation for Public Broadcasting shall have a Board of Directors (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Board"), consisting of 9 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. No more than 5 members of the Board appointed by the President may be members of the same political party.
(e) Officers and employees; term of office, compensation, qualifications, and removal; political party affiliation, political test or qualification when taking personnel actions
(2) Except as provided in the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) of this section, no political test or qualification shall be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation.
(f) Nonprofit and nonpolitical nature of Corporation
(3) The Corporation may not contribute to or otherwise support any political party or candidate for elective public office.
WASHINGTON, D.C, (May 2, 2025) — Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), issued the following statement today regarding the President’s Executive Order on public media: “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.”
Ms. Harrison is wrong, and my original statement stands.
PBS is a private nonprofit established in 1969 and a highly valued presenter of programs and stories meant to provide information that causes us to think and learn. What on earth is wrong with that? What specifically makes you think their process is faulty or wrong?
The points and direction of this act is similar to many non-profits, who must limit their political activity directly, BUT nonprofits may set up 501c(4)s to directly lobby. You obviously do not understand the difference. It is imperative that nonprofits be allowed an avenue to approach political leadership to provide them with information, and to ask for their support. This is what makes our country great and allows private nonprofits to supplement church and governmental support and work. Information is important to all of us, and PBS/SDPB provides this. Not hearing information and not having it available hurts all of us. Limiting access to information is a threat to our country.
From their website:
PBS is a membership organization that, in partnership with its member stations, serves the American public with programming and services of the highest quality, using media to educate, inspire, entertain and express a diversity of perspectives. PBS empowers individuals to achieve their potential and strengthen the social, democratic, and cultural health of the U.S.
Please provide tangible proof or examples of any of these points being contradicted. Presenting and interviewing about current wars, topics, issues is not political, it makes sense to talk about these things. How else do we learn. The interviewing process that CPB utilizes is to have experts in the field and leaders in these areas discuss these topics.
In your second to last paragraph, you quote PBS as follows: "using media to educate, inspire, entertain and express a diversity of perspectives."
It's that "diversity of perspectives" phrase that bothers me.
To be clear, I have in the past placed great value on the work of PBS, NPR, et al, including contributing when they had fundraisers. In fact, The MacNeil/Lehrer and later Lehrer news shows were appointment TV for me, starting with their half-hour show in the seventies.
However, if we ran a test using the question, "Which are similar, and which are dissimilar," regarding the editorial point of view of various news organizations, I think it would become clear that the outlets overseen by CPB have taken a political side that isn't in keeping with their charter.
I would be equally upset if the answer to the above question was that PBS and NPR were indistinguishable from Fox News as I am that they are now indistinguishable from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et cetera.
If the objective is to place blame, the blame belongs to the executives such as Ms. Harrison who allowed this to happen. Shame on them.
Diversity of perspectives should not bother anyone. It is exactly what makes America great and why the topic of information and different viewpoints are critical. I'm hoping you will reconsider and look more closely at what exactly the difference between PBS and the other "for profit" news outlets you mentioned. We should work together to make PBS better, NOT by cutting them off at the knees or higher, this doesn't help make information and discourse more available, but less so.
Shame on you, Johnson, Rounds, and Thune. Your weak refusal to stand up to Trump (again) hurts South Dakotans. You are complicit in the dismantling of democracy for the sake of pleasing an egomaniac who knows that securing his dictatorship requires silencing any media he does not control.
These are SD Stories and SD Voices that have been reduced or attempting to be "eliminated". I'm so proud of SDPB and all the important information that they provide. Please, if you are not a donor already, reach out to them. We are in great risk of news and information becoming more and more skewed. We need real conversations such as those that Lori Walsh provides on In the Moment.
You can thank Senators Rounds and Thune and Rep. Johnson for this!
So, what lessons can be learned from this?
Here's one: Don't be so political.
Here's another: Stick to your core mission.
Here's another: Play with fire and you will get burned.
What examples do you have of SD Public Broadcasting being so political? I was recently on In The Moment talking about food waste and food recovery on In The Moment. These are stories that need to be told. What fire did they play with? Please can you give us some examples?
The statement at the end of this reply by the President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is in clear contradiction to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
Subpart D — Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Sec. 396. [47 U.S.C. 396] Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(c) Board of Directors; functions, duties, etc.
(1) The Corporation for Public Broadcasting shall have a Board of Directors (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Board"), consisting of 9 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. No more than 5 members of the Board appointed by the President may be members of the same political party.
(e) Officers and employees; term of office, compensation, qualifications, and removal; political party affiliation, political test or qualification when taking personnel actions
(2) Except as provided in the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) of this section, no political test or qualification shall be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation.
(f) Nonprofit and nonpolitical nature of Corporation
(3) The Corporation may not contribute to or otherwise support any political party or candidate for elective public office.
WASHINGTON, D.C, (May 2, 2025) — Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), issued the following statement today regarding the President’s Executive Order on public media: “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.”
Ms. Harrison is wrong, and my original statement stands.
I'm not understanding your point.
PBS is a private nonprofit established in 1969 and a highly valued presenter of programs and stories meant to provide information that causes us to think and learn. What on earth is wrong with that? What specifically makes you think their process is faulty or wrong?
The points and direction of this act is similar to many non-profits, who must limit their political activity directly, BUT nonprofits may set up 501c(4)s to directly lobby. You obviously do not understand the difference. It is imperative that nonprofits be allowed an avenue to approach political leadership to provide them with information, and to ask for their support. This is what makes our country great and allows private nonprofits to supplement church and governmental support and work. Information is important to all of us, and PBS/SDPB provides this. Not hearing information and not having it available hurts all of us. Limiting access to information is a threat to our country.
From their website:
PBS is a membership organization that, in partnership with its member stations, serves the American public with programming and services of the highest quality, using media to educate, inspire, entertain and express a diversity of perspectives. PBS empowers individuals to achieve their potential and strengthen the social, democratic, and cultural health of the U.S.
Please provide tangible proof or examples of any of these points being contradicted. Presenting and interviewing about current wars, topics, issues is not political, it makes sense to talk about these things. How else do we learn. The interviewing process that CPB utilizes is to have experts in the field and leaders in these areas discuss these topics.
In your second to last paragraph, you quote PBS as follows: "using media to educate, inspire, entertain and express a diversity of perspectives."
It's that "diversity of perspectives" phrase that bothers me.
To be clear, I have in the past placed great value on the work of PBS, NPR, et al, including contributing when they had fundraisers. In fact, The MacNeil/Lehrer and later Lehrer news shows were appointment TV for me, starting with their half-hour show in the seventies.
However, if we ran a test using the question, "Which are similar, and which are dissimilar," regarding the editorial point of view of various news organizations, I think it would become clear that the outlets overseen by CPB have taken a political side that isn't in keeping with their charter.
I would be equally upset if the answer to the above question was that PBS and NPR were indistinguishable from Fox News as I am that they are now indistinguishable from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et cetera.
If the objective is to place blame, the blame belongs to the executives such as Ms. Harrison who allowed this to happen. Shame on them.
Diversity of perspectives should not bother anyone. It is exactly what makes America great and why the topic of information and different viewpoints are critical. I'm hoping you will reconsider and look more closely at what exactly the difference between PBS and the other "for profit" news outlets you mentioned. We should work together to make PBS better, NOT by cutting them off at the knees or higher, this doesn't help make information and discourse more available, but less so.
I'm still not seeing any examples of your claim of political bias.