Christopher Schroeder

Category: local

  • A Better Response?

    WBEZ as was predicted held a pop-up fundraiser this week.

    This station and National Public Radio have been citing the $1.1 billion loss to their member stations. This money had already been authorized for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and included in member station budgets, but Congress at Trump’s request eliminated this funding as a part of its recent recision.

    In response, too many public media representatives are talking about losses by focusing on the economic effects. Too few are offering inspiring, imaginative, and innovative visions of the way that public media will continue to exist.

    The problem isn’t acknowledging the economic effects, which is understandable. Rather, it’s that only doing so is failing the public at the time it most needs public media.

    These cuts have been threatened for years. This attempt increasingly seemed likely to be the one when conservatives withdrew public funding.

    Public media representatives in other words have had ample opportunity over many years to envision alternatives, and the worst has happened, which is actually an opportunity. Now is the time to offer an independent and bold vision for the future of public media not just to reassure existing donors but also to attract new supporters.

    I would actually welcome a forceful articulation for full public funding (e.g., McChesney 2008). At the very least, I encourage public media leaders to offer bold reimagings of public media today.

    Such an approach would transform what the current administration and congressional Republicans expect to be a devastating cost into a potential catalyst for greater independence. As such, it would announce that public media will no longer be dependent upon political whims.

    These observations come from a strong public media supporter. My biggest donations for example go to WBEZ, and I switched newspaper subscriptions after Chicago Public Media announced its new partnership with the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper.

    That explains my dismay over a recent Sun-Times subscriber survey. This request asked for feedback about which scenarios, such as fewer publication days or less opinion writing, would cause us to cancel our subscriptions.

    These seemingly fearful responses offer the wrong, and opposite, message. Public media are needed today perhaps more than ever.

    Facts are increasingly threatened. The information environment is increasingly polluted. Reason, deliberation, and other democratic, and American, values are endangered species.

    Leading in good times is easier. Leading in challenging times however offers good leaders chances at greatness.

    These public media leaders must speak to all of us, including existing donors and the general public. They must encourage us to imagine with them a better public media tomorrow.

    That is how I hope we endure the challenges confronting public media today.

  • No Kings

    No Kings March (14 June 2025)
    No Kings March (14 June 2025)
    No Kings March (14 June 2025)

  • Criticizing the Critics

    I had concerns about the Chicago Sun-Times even before its most recent AI-related fiasco.

    The newspaper seems to have diminished in quality and quantity since I started subscribing. More recently, it seems to be moving away from the opinion business.

    This shift seems more than refraining from candidate endorsements as is reportedly required of nonprofits. In fact, it recently stopped publishing editorials after losing much of its editorial board to survival by-outs.

    Since then, it has haphazardly offered op-eds, including some regular columns. These most consistently appear on Sundays although the weekly total number (and quality) seem to be decreasing. Some days have none, or at least none I can find.

    This number is but one inconsistency. Others are offering these opinions in consistent spaces and even including an opinion section in its TOC, which sometimes includes columnists by their names or even not at all.

    A bigger problem is the effects upon its identity as a newspaper. Some suggest that newspapers serve three functions — corroborating facts, curating content, and offering opinions (e.g., Rose-Stockwell [2023], 261-263) .

    What happens to newspapers that abandon one of these central functions? At what point does it cease to exist as a newspaper? And could cost-cutting efforts by eliminating these option only hasten its demise?

    I switched my subscription to the Sun-Times as soon as it announced in 2022 its partnership with Chicago Public Media. This innovative approach if sustainable has potential I believe to strengthen both this newspaper and the larger organization.

    However, I’ve been increasingly disappointed by the results. I realize that I don’t have all the information to make complete conclusion, but I do have some facts and my impressions as a regular consumer of its content.

    I can see several obvious options though to mitigate the effects of losing its editorial board. Some easy ones are establishing a consistent opinion section and including this section in its TOC every day.

    Another, which might require a bit more effort (and expense?), is amplifying existing critical op-eds. For example, it could republish ones offered by The Conversation, a collection of opinion-based accounts written by experts whose paychecks primarily come from other sources.

    None of these though addresses the need to fund the production of critical opinions, and to employ opinion-writers. These are more challenging needs but ones that must at least be considered.

    I hope the Chicago Sun-Times will reconsider its responsibility to offer opinions. Print newspapers still matter even in an attention age (e.g., Hayes [2025], 257-258), and these functions are perhaps more important today than ever.