Paula Kerger: The amount of federal money that comes into public broadcasting is about 15%. For us, the amount of money that we would lose would be significant, but if you’re sitting in a small community and 40% of your budget is the federal support, you probably can’t make that up. This is about something that’s much larger than any of us. I always say if you’re looking for a guarantee, you’re living in the wrong decade because everything, I think, has shifted so much, and I believe that we will succeed at the end of the day. But we’re going to succeed if we are, again, constantly focused on both our values as well as the mission and not letting that somehow get lost in just all the noise.

Bob Safian: That’s Paula Kerger, CEO of PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service. I wanted to talk with Paula about PBS’ battle to maintain government funding in the face of MAGA hostility and what, if anything, she can do to protect programming from Sesame Street to Frontline. We dig into what she calls misconceptions about PBS, the role of corporate philanthropy in its future, its relationship with Netflix and YouTube, and more. Whether or not you’re an avid watcher of Nova or Ken Burns or Masterpiece, PBS’ predicament reveals critical lessons about focus, mission and the need to evolve or die trying. I’m Bob Safian, and this is Rapid Response.

[THEME MUSIC]

I’m Bob Safian. I’m here with Paula Kerger, President and CEO of PBS. Paula, thanks for being here.

KERGER: Oh, thank you for giving me an opportunity to chat with you today.

SAFIAN: This year has been a stressful, uncertain time for a lot of business leaders. You’ve had more tough choices than most. How are you doing?

KERGER: Oh, it’s been an interesting year, I’ll say that. And we’re actually only halfway through it, so yeah, we were already in an interesting time, right, with all of the changes in media and now with Washington too. It’s been interesting.

SAFIAN: Yeah. I mean, it’s been disquieting to me that the place that brought me Nova and Sesame Street and so many other great shows has sort of found itself in the Trump crosshairs. But you’ve been defined as being political, right?

KERGER: Yeah. Well, in March I participated in, I was invited to speak at a hearing hosted by the Doge Subcommittee, chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the title of that hearing was Un-American Airwaves: Holding the CEOs of NPR and PBS to Account. I have heard PBS referred to in many different ways, never as un-American. I believe we’re the most American of institutions. We’re independent stations across the country, all locally owned, operated, governed, run by people that live in communities. It feels like America to me. What do you think?

SAFIAN: I had the CEO of NPR on this show just before you, and she testified in Congress at that hearing. Was being lumped together with NPR, was that a good thing or a bad thing for PBS?

KERGER: I mean, I don’t know. I mean, they’re largely a news organization. News is a piece of what we do, but it’s certainly not all of what we do. People think that we’re together. We aren’t exactly. We just happen to both serve the public, and some of our stations are joint licensees. I’m always happy to sit alongside our colleagues in radio. My grandfather founded a public radio station, so radio has always been in my blood. So it was fine to be able to talk together. Our stories are a little different because again, what we do is a little different, but it was an experience.

SAFIAN: I mean, no, as I recall, the Republican congresspeople in that hearing, they were pretty hostile. You must have wanted to snap back, but I guess you know that you can’t when you’re there. Do you erupt afterwards? How do you vent after something like that?

KERGER: I actually went for a run afterwards. Yeah. I mean, obviously it’s sobering. I mean, I love our democracy, and so to be testifying and to realize that I was not convinced going in, and I certainly wasn’t convinced coming out, that I actually changed anyone’s mind. I think everyone came into that hearing with their own ideas of who we are and what we do, and I’m not sure there was anything that I could say that would have made a difference or not.

Understanding the structure and independence of PBS

SAFIAN: A lot of people, I guess, misunderstand what PBS is. I mean, you mentioned these 300-some local member stations that control their own programming. So what’s the role of PBS itself in that system, your role?

KERGER: Yeah. I mean, since I’ve been in this job, I’ve spent a lot of time on the road visiting stations. I came into it from our station in New York. I was the station manager there, and I knew a lot about public broadcasting from the lens of WNET. I worked on an island off of the coast of North America, and so when I first took this job, I went on the road. I went to every state across the country, and I wanted to see what public broadcasting really looked like at the ground level because people do misunderstand. We’re not a network. We’re not like CBS or NBC. We don’t control any of these stations. We were built by the stations themselves to be able to deliver at scale the things that individual stations wouldn’t be able to do by themselves.

Even my old station in New York would not have been able to produce a NewsHour and a Sesame Street and a Masterpiece and a Great Performances and a Nature and a Nova. But if you put all of the resources together and people sort of shared in program acquisition and also shared in an ability to move content in between stations, you actually have something that is… Actually, the S in PBS represents the service that we provide for our public broadcasting system. And so, each station is independent. They make the decision what they air. I always say if you want a lesson in humility, run a federated organization because you have a lot of responsibility, but you absolutely don’t have ultimate authority over a whole series of things that people assume you do.

SAFIAN: Federal funding accounts for a portion of your budget, right?

KERGER: Yes.

SAFIAN: There are legislative challenges to that underway. There’s an executive order that you’ve sued to block. I know you’re hoping none of this comes to pass, but do you have to prepare now in case the funding goes away?

KERGER: So in aggregate, the amount of federal money that comes into public broadcasting is about 15%. The federal money that we’re talking about, that’s under debate in Congress, 70% of that actually goes directly to stations, and then a little bit of it comes to us. So 15%, someone just said to me a little while ago, well, that doesn’t sound like a lot. Maybe you could make that up. For us, the amount of money that we would lose would be significant, but if you’re sitting in a small community and 40% of your budget is the federal support, you probably can’t make that up. And this is actually why we fight so hard to try to hold onto that funding.

Navigating political misconceptions and media polarization

SAFIAN: You mentioned the name of that hearing, and I mean, the impression is like, oh, PBS and this funding is a conduit for a certain kind of content to be infiltrated into some of these smaller communities as well as larger ones. Do you think there’s anything you could do to sort of change the impression of PBS from this administration, change the programming, change the talent, anything? Do you think about that?

KERGER: We’ve always had really passionate supporters all across the political spectrum, so I really don’t think that it’s a matter of… I mean, I think in some ways, perhaps we’re a talking point. I don’t know. During the hearing, some of the programs I was asked about are more than 10 years old, and I think someone just looked through a list and pulled some titles rather than actually understanding what it is that we have on the air. And I’ll tell you, Bob, I actually just got a note from someone over the weekend that said, “I think there may be some bias in what you do.” And I said, “Well, can you give me an example of what you’re talking about?” And many times they can’t.

It’s like, well, I just think you… And usually I think at that point they’re talking about news, which is a piece of what we do. It’s an important piece. We do the news every night. And then, we also have Frontline, which I often say is the most important series we have on our air. So few media organizations are doing investigative journalism anymore, and I know those programs have been heavily used by legislators and policy makers as well as the general public. So to me, all of this feels not exactly what people have represented. I don’t know.

SAFIAN: The brand of PBS, I mean, you mentioned the support, historical bipartisan support, and it’s almost like the brand has been turned into something, to meaning something different than it meant in a very short period of time.

KERGER: Well, we’ve done a lot of surveys, and we do all the time. I take to heart our obligations to serve all of America. And I feel in this moment, people have put themselves into these little bubbles where they’re only getting information or interested in information that reflects back their own perspectives. And I think the role of any media organization should be to challenge people to understand that people have different perspectives. We can agree that we may not agree with someone’s point of view, but we can accept the fact that that’s a legitimate point of view. We seem to have lost all of that. Everything has devolved into I’m right and you’re wrong. But at our heart, I think we agree with a lot of key ideas and principles. And so, how do we get back to that again? How do we get back to helping people understand information that is going to be important for them for their lives? And that’s what we do.

SAFIAN: And when you choose to take legal action against the Trump administration, against the executive order, how much do you worry that, oh, there’s a certain part of the country that’s just going to say, yep, that confirms that they’re against our president?

KERGER: Yeah. I mean, look, I-

SAFIAN: I mean, those are tough decisions, right?

KERGER: Yeah. This was a really tough decision, and I had people that were very anxious that we filed immediately, “Why haven’t you filed yet?” And I had others that said, “Just make sure that you really have looked at this carefully.” I mean, the decision to file was not one that we took lightly, and frankly, we filed with a great amount of sadness. And it was sobering to look at the first draft of our complaint that begins PBS v Donald J. Trump, to the fact that we would ever be in a position where we would be involved in legal action against the President of the United States is nothing that I ever thought we would be in, but the executive order was one we had to respond to. It made it illegal for any federal money to come into public broadcasting. This executive order would’ve restricted any of our stations from using any money that they received from the government. I mean, it would basically unwind our system. So we then made the decision that we were going to go forward, but it is not anything that I wanted to do.

Leading through uncertainty and focusing on mission

SAFIAN: Even with the more recent Supreme Court decisions that had been largely supportive of Trump’s administration’s efforts, still no second thoughts about this being something you kind of had to do?

KERGER: No, I think we had to do it. I think we had to go on the record. The executive order is in breach of the Public Broadcasting Act. This is not where I wanted to be spending any of our efforts, but I could see no way around not pushing back on this executive order.

SAFIAN: How difficult is it to run the day-to-day operations at PBS, I mean, so much noise and distraction? Do your employees talk about the future of PBS’ funding, or you’re trying to tell them just keep your heads down as much as possible?

KERGER: What I tell them is that this is a time when we need to be doing our best work, because I can think of no better argument for the support of public broadcasting, whether that’s from the public or whether it’s from the federal government, than by doing the work that people expect us to do. And because I have been out talking a lot about it, I’m getting directly a lot of notes from people who talk about how important their local stations are to them. And one especially moving card from a young man who had just gotten his doctorate, who wrote about the fact that he grew up in a home without cable, that PBS was hugely important to him, and that he felt that it had really shaped him and had sent him on the path eventually to, and he was first generation in his family, to go to college.

And so, I read those letters to our staff and to our station managers because for me, it’s a reminder that we can’t mess this up. This is about something that’s much larger than any of us. I always say if you’re looking for a guarantee, you’re living in the wrong decade. Because everything, I think, has shifted so much, the importance of communication and clarity and recognizing that when you don’t have answers to say, “I don’t know,” not making promises around things that you know can’t necessarily deliver against. So no false assurances, “Oh, everything’s going to be fine. We’re going to be fine.” No, we don’t know, but we’re going to do our best. And I believe that we will succeed at the end of the day, but we’re going to succeed if we are, again, constantly focused on both our values as well as the mission, and not letting that somehow get lost in just all the noise.

SAFIAN: There’s not enough data to really know what the right decision is, and you have to make a choice with incomplete information. I mean, that’s certainly what we’re experiencing in 2025. Things are so volatile.

KERGER: So volatile and so fluid, and I think so many people are just not comfortable in that kind of role. So many of the decisions we end up making you make with your best judgment and hope that you’re right more than wrong. And even when you’re wrong, recognizing that fast and pivoting off of it. We don’t have the luxury of being able to just coast on a lot of things that we’ve done in the past. We’ve got to be constantly just lean forward and figuring out as we are learning things on the fly, what does that mean, and how does that change the way that we think about our business?

SAFIAN: So much of being a leader in 2025, as Paula notes, is about staying flexible, whatever crazy hand you’re dealt next. So, how much does PBS double down on controversial programs and documentaries, or might the organization be better off without shows like PBS News or Frontline? We’ll talk about that after the break. Stay with us.

[AD BREAK]

Before the break, PBS’ Paula Kerger talked about hostile government attacks on the organization from Congress to the White House. Now, she talks about how she’s rethinking PBS’ business model, what was behind Sesame Street’s deal with Netflix, and whether investigative news is just too risky. Let’s get back to it.

Reimagining the PBS business model for the digital era

Netflix picked up the rights to syndicate Sesame Street. I’m curious if you were involved in that at all as a way to safeguard the programming. How much of your future business model might be as a partner to streamers, that the public part of public broadcasting maybe becomes less?

KERGER: Yeah. I mean, look, I’m constantly thinking about our business models moving forward. So Sesame is a really interesting example. About 10 years, maybe a little less than 10 years ago, HBO was building out its streaming presence, and they wanted to acquire some kids content. And so, they entered into a relationship with Sesame. But as streamers now are looking at their businesses, many of them actually have really moved away from much kids content. And Max, under Warner Brothers Discovery, made the decision they weren’t going to continue. And so, Sesame was able to make a deal with Netflix, that for us, is frankly a better deal. We have access to more of the library. We have everything available, same day and date.

And I think all of that just shows to me that we have to be open to thinking about lots of different models. And I think for most companies, partnership is part of the future. I think we all have expertise in specific areas, and if we can figure out ways that we can bring some of our forces together, and again, that comes back to the public-private partnership. We’re not expecting the federal government to give us all the money we need to run PBS. As I said, it’s 15%, but it’s a critical 15%. We take our responsibility seriously to go out and raise the rest. And a lot of that’s through philanthropy. Some of that’s through partnership, and I think that certainly will be the case as we look forward.

SAFIAN: But it’s not the case where you’re like, I just have to think about a future where I’m not getting any money from the government anymore.

KERGER: Look, anything is possible. In this environment, I think anything is possible. I mean, we would look different for sure. I think a number of our stations would go off the air, which I think would be very damaging to communities. The need for information is significant. And I think with all the promise of digital media, it hasn’t been fully realized. And I think there is always going to be a space for public media. We’re not the whole answer to the information needs of the country, but we’re a significant piece. And I think as we look to partner with others, I think there are big opportunities for the future.

SAFIAN: These are terrible bargains to have to ask you about, but in trying to keep the federal money, do you talk at all about like, “Oh, well, news is a flashpoint. Maybe we don’t do as much news programming. DEI is a flashpoint. Maybe we don’t emphasize diversity and representation in our programming the same way.” Are those conversations that you have, or is it like, “Well, then it’s not our mission, and we’re better off not existing at all”?

The importance of news and investigative journalism

KERGER: I think it’s a slippery slope. I’m sure it’s not going to surprise you that others have said, “Well, maybe news is something that you could set aside.” But I mean, I’m really proud of the news work that we do. There are very few in the investigative journalism business anymore. It’s expensive. It’s risky. There are big stories that need to be covered, and someone needs to do it.

SAFIAN: But of course, 60 Minutes is one of the targets that Trump has gone after, which is one of those more investigative shows, right?

KERGER: Correct. And I do hope that they stay firm because I think that these shows are really important. And I think that if we start to make those choices it’s like, “Well, maybe we won’t do news.” Or, “Well, maybe we won’t do this.” I mean, this is why we were created, then we don’t deserve to exist. I look back over the history of public broadcasting. I mean, we were created originally with this idea that the marketplace, as rich and robust as it could be, was never going to be able to do everything. And you see that. I mean, you saw that in cable. All these companies started up. People forget that A&E stood for Arts and Entertainment, or TLC actually stood for The Learning Channel. That’s what it was. That’s what the initials stand for. Bravo was high arts. I mean, all of this has shifted tremendously.

They started out great with this wonderful, lofty idea. We’ll be just like public broadcasting. We’ll show them. We can make it go as a commercial venture, but you start to make different decisions. And it’s just, the commercial imperative is different. I always say we’re in a different business, we just happen to use the same tools. And so I feel now, even deeper, that so much of the work that we do, including in news, where so many people have just retreated to places where they’re just going to hear their own opinions parroted back, that we need to be in the space.

SAFIAN: We started by talking about how uncertain 2025 has been for a year, and you said, “Well, and we’re only six months in.”

KERGER: Yeah.

SAFIAN: What’s at stake for PBS right now?

KERGER: So right now, we have pulled together. We’ve been working for many months actually thinking about different scenario planning if we have to deal with different circumstances. And as I said, mostly right now, we’re focused on the process of how we’d have to make some hard decisions of what we can do and not to. The first trip that I did, this man came up to me. He said, “I have a farm three hours from here.” He said, “So I drove in because I wanted to meet you.” And he said, “And I wanted to tell you that I worried a lot with my kids, raising them on the same farm that I grew up on, but I knew that we had you. And I knew that because you were there for my kids, that they would have exposure to some of the things that I hoped would be important for them.”

And he said, “And so, I really want you to know, don’t mess this up.” So right now, I would hate to see us go in a more commercial direction. I think that the opportunity for us, through some philanthropy and through some partnerships, is probably what will propel us forward.

Exploring partnerships and the role of philanthropy

SAFIAN: Have you had any engagement with businesses, with corporations, about the private sector, about stepping in and filling some of this gap? I mean, a lot of the corporate executives I talked to, they’re a little wary about getting on the wrong side of the administration. Has doing that kind of fundraising gotten easier, gotten harder?

KERGER: Look, fundraising is never easy. And right now, when you look at all of the other organizations that are being impacted by some of the decisions over these last months, I think a lot about research, science research, the challenges that universities are grappling with and so forth. There are a lot of people that are looking for help and support. And so, I often have had people come to me in the last months and say, “Isn’t there some billionaire that could come in and solve your problem and make this a lot easier?” And there’s not a long line of billionaires waiting, but I think even if there were, I’m not sure that’s the right idea. I mean, the thing that has always been powerful about public broadcasting is we get lots of contributions from lots of people. So when I say we’re the most American, I believe that. We’re the most democratic organization.

Nobody owns PBS. And I think that’s very important to preserve. We’ve always benefited from relationships with corporations. There may be other opportunities with other media partners, and we certainly have been in those conversations. We have a great relationship with Google and YouTube, the place where so many people are now watching PBS. So I think that there are other opportunities for us, but I also believe that in the midst of what is a very, very difficult time, we also are being forced to step back and think about, are there things that we’re doing that we shouldn’t be doing anymore that maybe aren’t as effective? And I think using this moment to try to think about all of that as well as are there other partners that we should be thinking about that perhaps we haven’t until now, and that, I think, that is a positive of the moment.

SAFIAN: Well, Paula, this has been great. Thank you so much for doing it.

KERGER: Oh, this was really fun. Thank you.

SAFIAN: In the world of commerce, when you have passionate consumers, it usually provides a competitive mode. But for PBS, that doesn’t seem to matter right now. And I think that echoes a lot of fears that other brands and businesses have in this unpredictable climate. The old rules about what protected us are breaking down, and we just don’t know where to look for safety. Paula’s response to that is spot on, to focus on your mission and your values. The goal is to feel content and proud of the mark we’ve made for however long we can. Here at Rapid Response, we have no plans of slowing down, but acknowledging that our future isn’t guaranteed helps us to be more present, intentional and grateful. We’re certainly grateful to you for spending your time with us. Our next episode comes out on Friday. I’m Bob Safian. Thanks for listening.