PBS News Hour West to go dark after ASU discontinues contract

Posted by heavyset_go 10 hours ago

Counter143Comment59OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by mikeyouse 7 hours ago

Of course it’s due to the federal funding cuts. At least DHS got 2,000x more than these cuts saved from PBS as our deficit continues to explode.

https://current.org/2025/11/weta-to-cut-staff-cancel-pbs-new...

Comment by codeddesign 6 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by ch2026 6 hours ago

President Trump explicitly signed an Executive Order to defund public media: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/endi...

Comment by xp84 6 hours ago

Okay, but do you actually know what monies changed hands under the now-ended agreement? Perhaps PBS was not paying ASU, as the person quoted said, it was a mutually beneficial relationship. ASU got to have a very cool internship opportunity right on site of its prominent J-school.

If PBS was not paying significant money to ASU, then it is unlikely to be related to federal politics.

Comment by trial3 6 hours ago

what are the revised priorities? what revised the priorities? maybe consider doing just the teensiest bit of journalism of your own

Comment by codeddesign 5 hours ago

That part is fairly easy to understand with a few google searches. Journalism programs are at a loss across the country and have been in decline for some time. When a university program is not profitable they close the program.

Low wages, less employment opportunity, and the decrease in interest of writing. Combine this with social media and the age of influencers - you suddenly have a huge decline across the board.

Journalism is not what you see on tv. Those are essentially actors and are the 1%. The rest are those writing in newspapers (in decline) and making barely livable wages with most on contract rather than salary. It’s an incredibly difficult line of work when it comes to wages and job security.

Comment by mmooss 4 hours ago

> When a university program is not profitable they close the program.

That's moving the goalposts. Universities are not for-profit organizations (with a few exceptions).

By insisting on focusing on 'profit', the enemies of liberal education and liberalism can shut down much of it. Business school is of course profitable, and science has patents. What about the history department?

Comment by codeddesign 2 hours ago

That would be up to the school. After all, it does have a $1.4 billion dollar endowment. (ASU is not struggling at all)

Every university has to decide what is profitable and what is a loss leader. You have to be well rounded to attract students, but also make money.

In this case, the school decided that this studio had less benefit to them than reward. If this studio attracted more students (tuition $$) then it would be a benefit.

People are getting mad at the White House, but in reality the school decided that this studio wasn’t worth keeping.

Just trying to be rational here.

Comment by bc3 6 hours ago

This is inherently political. The "revised priorities" are clearly because of our current economic and political climate. Your comment is intentionally obtuse or malicious.

Comment by codeddesign 6 hours ago

Malicious? It’s clear that the journalism program at ASU is at a loss and the university is prioritizing profitable programs. You are making a lot of personal assumptions from minimal text to support your statement. The school certainly has the funds to keep it open but are choosing not to.

What you are referring to is whether PBS as a network decided to not renew their contract with the University due to budget cuts. In which no statement has been made about this yet and would be nothing more than conjecture at this point.

IF that is the case, there is a bigger question at play: “is it a public service if the public is required to pay but not allow to contribute?”. For example, not everyone is allowed to enroll in the University.

Comment by junkypuppet 7 hours ago

The article doesn’t mention it, but I wonder if this has anything to do with ASU’s President trying to cozy up with the Trump administration [0]. Trump has already at least tried to cut federal funding for PBS [1]. I’m not sure where that’s at now.

[0]: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/arizona-state-universi...

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/nx-s1-5384790/trump-orders-en...

Comment by slicedice 7 hours ago

It got cut.

Comment by DrewADesign 7 hours ago

People shouting about PBS news being horribly biased are just flat-out wrong. Obviously their viewership leans centrist liberal, but no other news program in recent times approached their level of nonpartisanship when dealing with national politics. Regardless of their affiliation, they’d ask most interviewees a couple of pointed questions but always let them explain themselves uninterrupted, and let them have the last word unless it was blatantly false. In the Obama era they regularly had top Republican leadership on from that era and years past— Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Mitch McConnell were on there all the time. I’ve seen Steve Bannon respectfully (actually rather warmly) interviewed within the past year, as well as people from the heritage foundation, Manhattan institute, Cato institute, and other people from across the right-wing spectrum.

David Brooks isn’t representative of the Republican mainstream at the moment, but they’ve started getting more representative Republican counterpoints on their panels over the past few months, even after the republicans cut their funding.

They present a more reasonable, tempered, and charitable perspective on both political parties than any other major news outlet.

Culture war bullshit.

Comment by every 5 hours ago

PBS and NPR have long been my go-to sources for news. Very much in the classic "who, what, when and where" vein. Editorial content is small, segregated and usually includes advocates for both sides. Blissfully boring and informative...

Comment by wahern 5 hours ago

NPR News veered sharply left over the past ~10 years, even more so local affiliate programming like that put out by KQED. In the past year or two there's been a moderate course correction, but their reporting is still clearly stuck in a liberal cognitive bubble.[1] I think a large part of it was the generational turnover that occurred, and their eagerness to "speak the truth", emboldened by the belief that any random sociology study that happened to support their view firmly established their beliefs as scientific fact, unchecked once Republicans disengaged from earnest empirical debate. But I agree about PBS, they managed to stay the course.

[1] NPR generally has always had a liberal bias, but their professionalism was sufficient to keep them straight shooting. Even Justice Scalia used to listen to NPR News, at least as late as the aughts.

Comment by DrewADesign 4 hours ago

I do agree that NPR is less neutral than PBS but if you want to hear what harder left political commentary sounds like, listen to an episode of Chapo Trap House. NPR isn’t sharply left— they’re very on the very mainstream end of liberal centrist with an occasional smattering of “I was a socialist for a semester in college” liberal in their editorial content— they’re just not shy about it.

PBS on the other hand— while obviously coming from an institution that exists because of things liberals value— clearly puts a lot of effort into representing most mainstream views charitably. It’s almost like if Reuters had a daily news hour.

Comment by meltyness 6 hours ago

The first half is usually solid, the back half is, well, usually more opinionated/softer. Lots of interviews with professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts or members of the public have their plight elevated as serious national policy concerns.

Comment by DrewADesign 4 hours ago

Sure there’s definitely a change in content but I don’t think it’s quite that bad. Tonight was capehart and brooks— who has never supported Trump even though he’s a conservative, so not a great foil for capehart… Pretty soft/polite analysis that always feels very late-aughts. Yesterday was someone who worked in the state department for 25 years giving a pretty dry breakdown on Venezuela. the night before that was a professor from Tulane criticizing trump’s strategy on Venezuela. The night before that was an interview with Bill Cassidy explaining the GOP health care proposal he co-authored, and a report from someone embedded with the Lebanese army. I wouldn’t exactly say it’s like a rehash of the conversation at the campus coffee shop over there.

Comment by Braxton1980 5 hours ago

>professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts

How do they do that and how do you know it's their intent?

Comment by meltyness 5 hours ago

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqr95elV5io&t=2108s

Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism.

For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion.

I had to go back pretty far to find a professor, specifically, the first few were social outreach or labor organizers.

Comment by Braxton1980 5 hours ago

Your claim was professors want their opinions to be considered fact.

Promoting a book doesn't do that. Having opinions is normal and what we are talking about. Whether the person is pessimistic has no relevance here and I would like to know why you presented that as evidence.

Comment by meltyness 5 hours ago

It's a national federally funded organization and they want to chat on about justice and fairness, literally asking in order "how does this effect diversity? oh. How about equity? oh. how about inclusion?", and it's such a surprise that it costs a trillion dollars to not plop a choo-choo from LA to SF when everyone "feels like it"? It's gross, it's gross to me. Stick to the news.

Comment by Braxton1980 1 hour ago

I assume by your rant you don't have the evidence I requested and your claims a more likely based on your political views and not reality.

What's disturbing is that you're probably an engineer, like you know how to open PRs but also think the 2020 election was stolen. Maybe that explains why software has bugs

Comment by mdhb 2 hours ago

What you are describing here is very clearly a you problem and you’ve somehow convinced yourself that it’s someone else’s problem.

Comment by wyldfire 6 hours ago

> People shouting about PBS news being horribly biased are just flat-out wrong.

"Truth is treason in an empire of lies" - George Orwell

Comment by Forgeties79 7 hours ago

After I heard someone call McConnell a RINO I knew that no amount of concessions would make them feel coverage was “fair.” It’s Trump’s way or the highway.

Comment by slantedview 6 hours ago

It's no coincidence that at a time of eroding democracy, public journalism is being cut.

Comment by meltyness 6 hours ago

As an avid and long term PBS viewer, donor, news hour west was 90% a waste of time anyway. Most evenings it is virtually the same broadcast, same segments. Media is more VOD-oriented anyway. They have been posting both broadcasts to YouTube for years, so you can assess this if you'd like.

The exception is if there's something notable to report on between 5PM and 8PM EST

Comment by chasil 6 hours ago

At the same time, even with the mayhem of the current executive, it is important to read the room.

The house of representatives controls the budget. Moderating perceived bias would be an obvious survival strategy.

Edit: Oh, drat, I've been ostracized. Whatever will I do?

Comment by Braxton1980 5 hours ago

>Moderating perceived bias would be an obvious survival strategy.

>Oh, drat, I've been ostracized. Whatever will I do?

Because you seemed to think the issue was the lack of reason when it's actually the reason itself.

Also, the government acting on perception instead of evidence is horrible.

In my opinion the claims of bias at PBS were done to keep the core Republican voter base energized. They've been told to not trust the media while Trump appoints multiple Foxnews employees to high level positions in the government.

Comment by chasil 5 hours ago

Right. Posted below, but this is clear as reported by their own.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...

Comment by codeddesign 6 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by jjulius 6 hours ago

This entire response is disingenuously obtuse.

Comment by codeddesign 5 hours ago

Like it or not, the entire response is accurate.

Comment by zzrrt 5 hours ago

Ok then, I look forward to my tax breaks and refunds enabled by cutting this program. I’m sure it’s in the mail with all the other dividends for citizens that Trump mentions every few months.

Comment by codeddesign 2 hours ago

Again, this would be the Legislative branch. Your right to vote has not decreased, and you can absolutely contact your senator to introduce a bill for what you stated. I mean, you have a representative. Absolutely use them if you dislike something.

However, disagreeing with the Legislative or Executive branch in no way erodes your democratic rights.

Comment by 6 hours ago

Comment by user3939382 6 hours ago

ASU accepted $20M in criminal gains IMHO AFAICT. I have receipts

Comment by RickJWagner 8 hours ago

I’m glad Walter Cronkite is remembered through that school. In my mind, he was one of the last great journalists from an era that wasn’t strongly politically biased.

Comment by lettergram 7 hours ago

When I read that I'm always personally confused. He had a commanding voice and had an aurora of being above it all. But when you listened and watched what he actually did, he seemed very political in my mind, though perhaps more of a moderate(?).

He even advocated for world government, endorsed politicians, etc.

Comment by themafia 7 hours ago

Uncritically accepted the Warren Report.

Comment by Braxton1980 5 hours ago

Is it possible you think there's a stronger political bias in the media today than in the past because of proganda designed to make you think that?

Comment by zzzeek 6 hours ago

Paging MacKenzie Scott....

Comment by askh4 8 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by djaouen 8 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by JoshTriplett 8 hours ago

The article has ads in it?

(uBlock Origin successfully blocks all of them.)

Comment by t0lo 7 hours ago

Sign of the times

Comment by alephnerd 8 hours ago

Are you going to spend a couple hundred dollars a year on a subscription?

Good, freely accessible, and ad-free press. You can only choose 2.

The economics of journalism are tough.

Comment by SoftTalker 7 hours ago

Strangely we used to think nothing of paying for a daily newspaper (which also contained ads) and many people subscribed to news magazines as well.

Comment by ipaddr 6 hours ago

Have you tried going back 80% ap articles, some opinion columns, classifieds and sports with a lifestyle section.

We are living in an era of more news, different formats more in depth. I think our expectations are misaligned we expect everything to be one click away and social media to present it to us in a doom scroll. The articles shared just here on hn you would never find in a newspaper. If you are lucky you discover a zine like phrack or 2600 and wait months for the next issue.

Comment by xp84 6 hours ago

I read the newspaper, just like you described, in the 90s and 2000s as a kid. It was really interesting and valuable. Honestly, yeah, that sounds amazing.

Comment by SoftTalker 4 hours ago

There was an endless variety of special interest magazines. We bought those too.

Comment by DrewADesign 7 hours ago

Yeah. This is the tech world making everything better. Sure the news is biased, poorly-written garbage, but you can have a lot of it, instantly, for like no money!

Comment by xp84 6 hours ago

The Internet is not devoid of good quality media. Yes, some of it you have to pay for. The free papers we had before the Internet were never bastions of great journalism (though I'll admit that national TV news once was once pretty decent, and free).

And all news is biased. The only thing is, you can only see the bias towards your ideological enemies. When it's your bias, it's called "the truth."

Comment by DrewADesign 4 hours ago

No — free media has almost always been substandard. The tech world essentially lowered the bar for all media. I pay for good media.

Comment by Wowfunhappy 8 hours ago

PBS News Hour is all three.

:(

Comment by dingnuts 7 hours ago

the reason they got defunded is because many people do not agree

Comment by lynndotpy 8 hours ago

The economics are rough, but there are many which offer all three. E.g.: NPR's text site: https://text.npr.org/

Comment by ViscountPenguin 7 hours ago

Public funding is kind of a cheat, but if we're gonna include them, I'd like to spruik that the ABC still technically has functional rss feeds: https://james.cridland.net/blog/2025/abc-news-australia-rss-...

They're no longer officially supported though.

Comment by bhasi 7 hours ago

Wow, this is great. It's like Hacker News/Old Reddit for news.

Comment by golem14 6 hours ago

I wonder if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events is actually a good media diet. I mean, I wonder if I will be OK just reading this (and maybe HN) and not suffer irreparable harm :)

Comment by djaouen 8 hours ago

> Are you going to spend a couple hundred dollars a year on a subscription?

I would have, if this planet didn't f*ck me over yet again with crippling poverty lol

Comment by mystraline 7 hours ago

> I would have, if this planet didn't f*ck me over yet again with crippling poverty lol

You misspelled capitalists. They are the ones who are fucking you, me, and anyone with money.