I grew up watching Sesame Street and The Electric Company on PBS, where curiosity and learning were celebrated every day. Like many readers of the Chattanoogan, these programs shaped my childhood by fostering an early love of learning that prepared me for school.
Today, WTCI provides that same vital link for countless families throughout the Tennessee Valley, helping kids learn how to learn in ways that commercial broadcasts and social media simply cannot.
Unfortunately, President Trump has proposed rescinding $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, jeopardizing local PBS member stations like Chattanooga’s WTCI-TV. Losing these federal funds could devastate WTCI’s award-winning educational initiatives, as well as its outstanding local programming.
Critics unfairly dismiss public media as unnecessary or biased, but the data tells a different story: poll after poll indicates that PBS has been among America’s most trusted media organizations for decades. Eliminating funding for WTCI does nothing but dismantle a valued Chattanooga institution and essential public resource. The result will not be savings for taxpayers -- instead, we'll only be more polarized, less informed, and without a valuable educational resource that so many families rely on.
Chattanooga must stand up to defend this shared resource and the enduring value it provides.
Kerry Hayes
* * *
PBS/NPR have historically been insular elitist entities with audiences with the liberal proclivity for attacking ad hominem anyone who dared criticize.
Only when an insider like Senior Editor Uri Berliner echoed what we already knew have they pretended to be balanced. NPR in Berliner’s words offered “the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.”
If PBS/NPR were as valuable to the public as claimed here they wouldn’t need taxpayer support, yet their proponents assume WTCI is not valuable enough to the community to draw a supporting audience like the other self supporting 22+ self supporting licensed stations in our listening area.
Patrick “Steve” Campbell
* * *
I am answering Kerry Hayes’ call to stand up for PBS funding and I respectfully request Congressman Fleischmann to do the same.
I don’t have the figures for the number of local folks who cherish the programming on WTCI (PBS) and WUTC (NPR), but nationally PBS and NPR are enjoyed by an estimated 170 million citizens, of which I am one. That number exceeds the total number of votes cast in the 2024 presidential election (155,238,302), which was won by a popular vote of less than 2.5 million. This should give pause to every member of Congress considering the President’s request to rescind the funding for PBS and NPR that had previously been approved by Congress and signed into law.
My instinct is that the 2026 elections would bring swift retribution to members of Congress who take part in robbing the American people of these beloved educational and cultural treasures.
I only hope that it doesn’t come to that.
Steve Winningham
* * *
In his letter supporting more government funding for NPR and PBS, Steve Winningham says, "I don’t have the figures for the number of local folks who cherish the programming on WTCI (PBS) and WUTC (NPR), but nationally PBS and NPR are enjoyed by an estimated 170 million citizens, of which I am one. That number exceeds the total number of votes cast in the 2024 presidential election (155,238,302), which was won by a popular vote of less than 2.5 million."
That is exactly why neither NPR nor PBS should get any more taxpayers' dollars. They are both popular enough to survive and perhaps even thrive in a free market, supported voluntarily by their willing audiences.
Andy Walker
* * *
I would have to guess that Patrick "Steve” Campbell does not watch public TV or listen to public radio. Because they are too biased. He probably watches FOX where everything is pure, simple, unbiased, honest and true to genuine journalistic standards. I don’t think that Mr. Campbell knows that public TV and radio cannot accept advertisements like ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.
There is no such thing as a self-supporting broadcast station, whether it be radio or TV, aside from the public stations they are supported by advertisers and I have seen newspapers that ran an editorial that most of their advertisers disagreed with and withdrew advertising all together. I have seen TV stations with the same problem.
Raleigh Perry
* * *
Trump’s threat to cancel NPR funding is not based on lack of demand or fraud.
Like Trump’s threats to unilaterally cancel all of Musk’s Federal contracts because Musk no longer aligns with him, Trump’s threat to cancel NPR funding results from NPR never aligning with him, although NPR is non-partisan. NPR accepts rebuttal to broadcasts of partisan guests. It also corrects its broadcast errors and retracts its incorrect statements. Nevertheless, any entity is never perfect.
But Trump believes NPR has always been politically anti-Trump, liberally biased, propagandizing, doesn’t corrects its broadcast errors nor retracts its incorrect statements; its broadcasts have little or no value. However, those are other subjects of debate; please comment about those subjects in new letter.
Interestingly, a Chattanoogan.com poll asked the question “Should the federal government eliminate funding for PBS and NPR?” I’ll make an assumption that those answering are primarily Republicans. Many previous polls resulted in substantial majorities favoring the conservative position.
The results I read were only 53 percent in favor of eliminating funding.
While neither a scientific nor credible poll, this begs the question “Should the majority always rule?” Sometimes the majority is wrong.
Returning to Trump’s threat, a White House Fact Sheet on NPR and PBS was posted online on May 1. It attempts to justify terminating NPR funding. The Fact Sheet states “NPR and PBS have fueled partisanship and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars, which is highly inappropriate and an improper use of taxpayers’ money, as President Trump has stated.”
What constitutes “partisanship” and “left-wing propaganda” is also debatable.
Aren’t “highly inappropriate” and “improper use of taxpayers’ money” subjective?
Is “highly inappropriate”:
Political satire with which you do not agree?
Performances, music or works not to your taste?
Movies, books or art that are anti-government, contain sex or justify violence?
In 1939 “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” was highly inappropriate.
Is “improper use of taxpayers’ money”:
Funding research to address medical issues primarily faced by a small group of racial or ethnic minorities?
Funding World Cup infrastructure for the benefit of only 11 cities?
Funding humanitarian efforts for innocent victims in war-torn areas?
I reviewed each bullet point on the Fact Sheet. The examples listed are misinformation, out of context, dislikes of programming or lies.
That Fact Sheet bases terminating funding on negative perceptions of, and disagreement with NPR programming.
Regarding Mr. Campbell’s response, he offers his opinion that “PBS/NPR have historically been insular elitist entities with audiences with the liberal proclivity for attacking ad hominem anyone who dared criticize.”
He uses the single opinion of Ari Berliner as support.
To fully believe Mr. Berliner, as Mr. Campbell does, one must totally disregard fact-based rebuttals and all credibility of NPR.
With Presidential immunity, Trump could re-mold or define what is or is not American culture. His very, very narrow and practically non-existent appreciation of culture becomes the standard; anything offending him will be branded as un-American. Censorship becomes acceptable.
Is this where we are headed? I hope not.
Is this what we want? I don’t. I hope you don't either.
Joe Warren