Point/Counterpoint
Cutting public media and emergency communication
POINT
Excerpts from Op-Ed: A Realistic Look At Public Media Cuts And Emergency Communications, by Erik Cudd, published June 26, 2025, InsideRadio
“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.”
Claim: (from Maria Cantwell’s Report) 112 public stations are at risk of shutting down if federal funding is withdrawn. “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.”
These cuts will jeopardize Emergency Alert System (EAS) readiness and the ability to transmit emergency information. “Yes, public broadcasters play a supporting role in the national emergency infrastructure. …FEMA’s IPAWS [Integrated Public Alert & Warning System] includes not only public radio and TV, but also commercial broadcasters, NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] weather radios, satellite systems, and most importantly, wireless emergency alerts (WEAs) delivered directly to mobile phones.”
“While PRSS [Public Radio Satellite System] 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. “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.”
Claim: Rescinding public broadcasting funds “defies the will of the American people. …Surveys regularly show Americans trust and appreciate their (NPR and PBS) programming. However, support for a service is not the same as unlimited public funding for it. …Debating the future of public broadcasting is not an attack on the First Amendment or on public safety.”
Claim: There is no commercial or technological alternative to public broadcasters during disasters. “Commercial radio, local television, mobile alerts, satellite, NOAA radio, and internet-based tools all (also) make up the nation’s resilient and redundant emergency warning ecosystem.”
“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
“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.
COUNTERPOINT
Bennett Kobb explains why cutting public media funding is cutting public safety
I wanted to respond to some points in the Op-Ed "A Realistic Look at Public Media Cuts and Emergency Communications" by Erik Cudd, which Inside Radio published on June 26.
The essence of Cudd's position is that concern over cuts to public radio and TV is exaggerated, and that emergency preparedness will not really be compromised if some stations have to reduce operations or close.
To parse his arguments we have to get into some technical details.
Besides broadcasting news, educational and cultural programs, PBS affiliate television stations also transmit emergency alerts over a special communications path known as the Warning, Alert and Response Network (PBS WARN).
PBS WARN is a backup to FEMA's main system that uses the Internet to send Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) from public safety authorities to the phone carriers for transmission to mobile phone users.
Through PBS WARN, WEA alerts can still get through to people's phones even if Internet service is disrupted. It is publicly visible at warn.pbs.org.
NPR's Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS) could also be used to convey vital emergency information to the public through NPR affiliate stations.
Basically Cudd argues that WEA alerts to phones are better and faster than radio and TV. He describes WEA as "more robust and scalable" and "in some cases, more effective". He entirely omits the fact that PBS WARN provides WEA with a critical backup.
If natural disasters or attacks interrupt the Internet, and if PBS TV stations have to roll back services or close, this emergency alert infrastructure is compromised.
While such a scenario may seem unlikely, it is worth noting that our Nation has just dropped some of our most powerful weapons on a nation known for supporting terrorism abroad. Our open society is still vulnerable to attacks, whether from foreign or domestic actors; and cutting funding for backup systems that can alert the public in a crisis is stupid and dangerous.
To his credit, Cudd suggests supporting "community-based low-power FM stations" - but also argues against what he calls "sustaining outdated broadcast dependency".
I would argue instead that as long as nearly 300 million cars are on the road in the United States - most of them with radio receivers, not to mention the millions of home and portable radios - along with 285 million TV sets in U.S. homes - we can't afford to ignore broadcasting's pervasive role.
Let's also mention the 157 million smart speakers in the U.S. One principal use of smart speakers is to listen to the audio streams of radio broadcast stations, many of which will be impacted if CPB funding is reduced or rescinded.
Cudd tries to reframe the argument by saying, "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."
Really? Trump has called NPR and PBS "radical left monsters" that have "hurt our country". That is a hallucination. Frightening and disturbing rhetoric about monsters is not a "legitimate policy conversation". The president's spending priorities are simple: Where possible, cut off news critical of him. Where PBS and NPR's exemplary reporting is occasionally unfavorable to Trump's administration, it is because reality is unfavorable to his administration.
Besides Wireless Emergency Alerts, all public radio and TV stations, as well as community LPFM stations, are required to connect to the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Threats to those stations’ survival can also affect their EAS service to their communities.
Unfortunately there has been no letup in wildfires, tornadoes, floods, train derailments, power outages, child abductions, school shooters and other natural disasters and criminal incidents that can threaten our lives and property.
Emergency communications and broadcast stations that help notify us of such hazards have been paid for with billions of taxpayer dollars and donations to local stations. Yet this administration is determined to politicize, disrupt and defund them. Trump has not explained how he intends to retain these emergency functions if vital public funding is lost.
Bennett Kobb is a technical volunteer at Austin Airwaves and KZSM-LP, San Marcos, Texas. He is retired from his role as Senior Associate for Defense & Security at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
This FCC Actions Alert is produced by the volunteers at the Community Media Assistance Project under the direction of CMAP Executive Director, Betty McArdle. We monitor many sources of information about the Federal Communications Commission, federal communications law, and community developments important to your station and your community. The information provided in this newsletter is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or legal advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions based on the content herein. If you have a news tip or a story idea, please email us at betty@c-map.org or leave word in the comments.
Communications Act of 1934, Sect. 326.
Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.