Christopher Schroeder

Tag: Chicago Public Media

  • Where Do You Go From Here?

    Where Do You Go From Here?

    I discovered this week that my seven-day Chicago Sun-Times delivery subscription rate had increased by more than thirty-three percent in one month.

    The Sun-Times rep couldn’t explain such a substantial increase, which she insisted had been shared in an email that I couldn’t locate even in my spam folder. She also couldn’t explain how this cost connected to the monthly WBEZ donations that I had been making for many more years than I had been a Sun-Times subscriber.

    Moreover, this increase was discovered in the same week that WBEZ announced its first on-air WBEZ fundraiser of the year, and the first without federal funding. Both are owned by Chicago Public Media, a nonprofit media company that acquired the newspaper in 2022, which made it “the largest nonprofit local news organization in the nation.”

    At that point, I had switched my newspaper subscription from the Chicago Tribune to the Sun-Times in support of public media. I’d generally prefer to have public media funded by the government as it is for example in Canada and elsewhere, which although problematic seems more reliable, but I recognize the political realities in the United States.

    One problem is that this new Sun-Times seven-day delivery rate is three times higher than the same Tribune rate at least for new subscribers. Another is that anyone can obtain the entire Sun-Times print version in electronic form through its website without spending any money.

    In other words, those of us who support Chicago Public Media, and prefer print newspapers, are spending a minimum of three times more than at least some Tribune subscribers. In exchange, we receive what everyone else can consume without any cost.

    A bigger problem is that the Sun-Times and WBEZ content seems to have decreased. Reports I initially hear on the radio for example or read in the newspaper will now reappear in the other form in what seems like a relatively recent overlap.

    Even worse is the way that new CPM leaders seemed unprepared for the present reality. They both seemed surprised by the federal funding loss, which is irresponsible given how often it had been threatened over the years, and have offered no coherent vision or detailed mission for its future, including one that explains the part that donors play.

    I don’t envy anyone in American public media whose existence depends upon the largesse of public. At the same time, I believe that the present state of public media in the United States could offer an opportunity to reimagine a more independent model, one that is both visionary and inspiring.

    If Chicago Public Media did that, they would also suggest that they will be good stewards of our support, which could reassure current donors and motivate new ones.

  • Not Again WBEZ

    Not Again WBEZ

    WBEZ is fund-raising again this week.

    The ostensible goal is replacing the remaining rescinded federal funds — around $150,000 of about $3 million as of yesterday morning — by the end of this week. The station in other words has reportedly replaced about $2.85 million, or ninety-five percent, as of this week and had about five percent more to go at the start of this “pop-up” fund-raiser.

    I still believe in public media, and wish these were fully funded with our tax dollars although I’m less sanguine about such a model than ever. I just think WBEZ is still operating on a flawed assumption, and in so doing insulting its listeners’ intelligence.

    One on-air person for example suggested yesterday that this loss was the equivalent of a month of broadcasting. She asked listeners to imagine eleven months of news and then one month of nothing.

    Such a scenario not only is unrealistic and unnecessary but also would be irresponsible. Moreover, this funding loss shouldn’t have surprised any perceptive person who knows that federal funding threats appeared long before the second Trump administration, which only increased their likelihood.

    Budgets are obviously choices. As a result, WBEZ could, and perhaps should, reconfigure its budget without this federal funding, and only expand it based on additional reliable funding.

    The station obviously should pursue additional reliable funding now perhaps more than ever. It could also reimagine its contributions and function, especially now that it needn’t worry about placating politicians anymore.

    WBEZ at least is no longer beholden to the federal government for the equivalent of one month of funding. Now it can boldly, and even brazenly, reimagine its role in metro Chicago and American democracy.

    Such a response would reassure existing donors that the station has been a good steward of our contributions. It also could inspire individuals, both new donors and existing ones, to contribute to this bold and brazen alternative, one that gives hope to the future of public media and our country.

    That beats begging for bucks to replace what this bully has taken.

  • A Better Response?

    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.