President Trump said he’d heard PBS had shut down. We’re wounded, true, but nowhere near dead. Local public television stations around the country have taken hard hits. Some have even dropped their PBS affiliation. While public media sorts things out, I continue to read dozens of viewers’ comments every day on social media and in my email inbox.
By Ricardo Sandoval-Palos
PBS Public Editor
“Bring out your dead!”
“Here’s one!”
“I’m not dead … I’m getting better.”
–Plague cart scene in Monty Python And The Holy Grail
At the end of a recent day – another one chock-full of grim news – I was reminded of the hilarious scene in the classic comedy, “Monty Python And The Holy Grail” that features a cart full of plague victims and a villager trying to dispose of someone not quite dead yet.
It was late at night, and as I scrolled through headlines, I came across a replay of President Donald Trump’s White House press conference. In a rundown of his second term’s accomplishments, so far, Trump said he had cut off all funding to “woke and biased NPR and PBS. And they’re sorta gone now, I guess. I hear they’re all closed up … ”
Sentiment noted.
Yes, we’re wounded. The Public Broadcasting System took a $25 million hit to its 2026 budget, damaging the infrastructure that provides public affairs, cultural and children’s programming to more than 300 local television stations and websites.
Yet we’re still here.
And small and rural stations that relied heavily on government funding saw their operating budgets slashed.
But most are still on the air.
A reset
One thing that indeed disappeared was the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which for decades had distributed taxpayer funds that supported public television and radio. In her final comments to the corporation’s board, CEO Patricia Harrison delivered these words, which continue to resonate across public media.
“American public media really was like a free enterprise and volunteer effort of all citizens. … It’s a public-private partnership, which is uniquely American. And for $1.65 or even less a year in taxes, every American has access to content that inspires independent thinking. That’s interesting, isn’t it? … Independent thinking. You get the information, then you come to your own conclusion. Trusted information, trusted reporting, and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Americans living in a vibrant democracy.”
In my small space at PBS, the reset has been painful. Like other PBS units and public media organizations, we’re restructuring. I am considering how the PBS Public Editor engages with audiences and addresses the daily questions, concerns and complaints about what they see on television and computer screens.
That’s why sometimes I feel like Monty Python’s poor plague victim: I can hear Trump pronounce us dead, but I’m compelled to protest, “I’m not dead.”
I’ll still be found at pbs.org/publiceditor. The traditional public editor’s page is a good home, especially to archive the video interviews I’ve conducted in recent years. These interviews have featured a diverse group, including the genealogists behind Finding Your Roots, Margaret Hoover of Firing Line and Baratunde Thurston of America Outdoors. One session featured PBS News’ Judy Woodruff and NPR’s Steve Inskeep, who spoke with me last year about reporting for a divided nation. I plan more video interviews, given the rich landscape of subjects our viewers say we should cover.
But to stay ahead of the plague cart, I’m joining a new (to me) platform. Over the past year, I’ve been following many keen thinkers and entertaining writers on Substack. I hope to use the space to connect with viewers and delve deeper into issues such as public trust in the media.
Words matter
Trust is critical. It can help journalists stand above a field crowded with deliberate disinformation and ideologically biased misinformation. But trust is hard to win and harder to hold. The media’s constitutional right to unfettered news gathering is no guarantee of an audience. And, while social media platforms, and opinion podcasts and websites can help keep up with today’s river of news, many of these venues fail the trust test because of an alarming absence of ethical journalism standards.
If we consistently adhere to the highest standards, we attract more viewers and readers who’ll lend us their trust. These are viewers who each day tell me they’re desperate for honest, nonpartisan information. But we can lose that trust with just one factual error that goes uncorrected. Doubt can surge when conflicts of interest go unchecked, or an on-air comment that, without clear labeling, strays into opinion.
PBS cares about trust, and we’re tested every day.
For example, last month PBS News navigated around a potential problem after co-anchor Geoff Bennett experienced a “hot mic” moment. After introducing a segment about problems many Native Americans encounter when seeking official recognition of tribal membership, some viewers heard Bennett say, “ … I guess I’m not getting this casino money.” The words sparked a storm of complaints. But even before I raised the matter with News Hour producers, Bennett had already explained what happened in a Reddit post:
“Hey everyone -- A clarification: What you heard was me talking with the control room -- not reacting to Tailyr Irvine or her work.
Irvine’s story about “blood quantum” requirements sparked a personal memory about my late grandfather, who once told me how -- decades earlier -- he’d been asked to prove his Native American ancestry to secure tribal membership tied to casino revenue sharing. The verification effort failed, in part because of the complicated, often-erased history of Black and Native intermarrying.
I closed that story the way he told it to me, quoting him directly: “He’s like, ‘I guess I’m not getting this casino money.’”
Unfortunately, that final line was caught on air. I understand how, without context, it could be misinterpreted. To be absolutely clear: it was not directed at Tailyr, nor was it a comment on her personal story.”
The controversy quickly – and rightly – dissipated.
Then there’s trust built on not appearing biased in one political direction or the other.
This winter, several PBS News viewers complained that reporters have used “Democrat” when talking about the Democratic Party or a Democratic politician.
What some reporters today miss is that the difference is no accident. In the early 1980s, conservative politicians and columnists began dropping the “ic” because they believed “Democratic” implied the party had a lock on our democratic form of government. Over the years, more journalists have parroted conservatives, saying, “Democrat senator” instead of “Democratic Party senator.” But the Associated Press’ Style Book labels the rephrasing as biased and best avoided. I reminded PBS News Hour producers of this standard, and I think they’re listening.
This is evidence that PBS listens to its audiences. It’s not “gone” or ready for the plague cart.
The audience’s protector
In my native Mexico, and throughout Latin America, the public editor – or, ombudsman, in old-school parlance – is called El Defensor del Lector, which roughly translates to “protector of the audience.” I am proud that PBS still has a public editor, especially after most major media have done away with the position.
I am eager for PBS audiences to see that I’m here when they need to know more about the why and the how of what gets on our screens. I’m here when they need to vent about news coverage. And I’m here to explain how things are supposed to work when something goes off the rails. (Like the worried viewer who recently asked for help when he wanted to make a single, $1,000 donation but unintentionally pressed the “send” button several times on a station website. He said he loves PBS, but not that much.)
I believe that because we take audience trust seriously, more politicians are realizing that their constituents appreciate how PBS reports news and public affairs, how it showcases U.S. cultures, and educates children. Enough politicians may yet rally one day to restore some of the federal funding lost in 2025, at least to revitalize small and rural stations.
Meanwhile, countless viewers have provided new support to local stations. Because of viewers like you, we see evidence of a public media rebound. Certainly not the disappearance a few politicians might want.
So, no, we’re not at all closed up. I dare say that PBS is more alive and robust than our Constitution’s embattled First Amendment, especially its guarantees of news gathering without government interference and the right of all people to question authority and demand accountability.