By Kathryn Peisert

Recently, the House finalized the bill on President Donald Trump’s request to cut $9.4 billion in federal funding that Congress had already approved. Included in those cuts is $1.1 billion in federal funding for public media, about 0.03% of the total federal budget.

I have heard many voices on National Public Radio programs share their concerns about the potential impacts of this loss of funding.

Most of the discussion has been about communities losing access to local human-interest stories about people doing incredible things; touching stories that help people feel more connected to their communities, which makes a difference when many of us struggle to have in-person relationships in this post-pandemic, screen-intense environment.

Earlier this month, I heard the NPR CEO Katherine Maher say that the vast majority of the federal funding NPR receives goes out to the individual local stations, and specifically that “no one will be helped if this funding is cut.” CNN reported recently that “over time, some local stations may be forced off the air, while other stations may have fewer shows to broadcast.”

While all of this is true, I do not believe these messages are strong enough to move citizens to action. Now that the bill has been passed and the cuts are real, finally a public figure has said on record what is really at stake: Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts said in The New York Times on July 18, that “Mr. Trump’s moves against PBS and NPR were part of the administration’s larger campaign to undermine mainstream journalism.

It is in line, he said, with the president’s lawsuits against the major broadcast networks and suggestions that the Federal Communications Commission might punish their stations over accusations of liberal bias. ‘It’s all part of a plan to intimidate and control the media and how they cover his presidency.’”

We need to dig deeper into what our lives will really be like without public media. What will happen in rural communities where people cannot afford to subscribe to a national newspaper, either in print or online? They might not have a television and, if they do, they might not choose to watch news on TV.

But they have their phones. We all know too well that the access to “news” via social media is rife with mis- and disinformation. If PBS NewsHour disappears, it will leave a gap for others to fill, perhaps another Fox News kind of program.

The airwaves those shuttered local NPR stations leave open could be filled with who knows what. Big cities and richer areas may fare OK; they are more likely to have people with the means to donate funds to their local stations and make up the gaps so that those public radio stations can stay on the air.

But envision pockets of the U.S. where the stations have to close because they don’t receive enough private donations.

In those places, the only (easy) access people would have to news is via their social media apps on their phones. However, I consider the algorithms pushing “news” out to people to be biased; most people don’t search for or seek out news this way, so they are only seeing a very narrow and curated slice of what is happening in the world.

Many of these communities already suffer from chronic absenteeism in schools because of life’s hardships, whether due to weather, distance to school, lack of transportation, child hunger or their need to help with siblings at home while their parents work long hours. Envision fewer children and adults in these areas having regular access to unbiased and fact-based information.

I believe this will result in even more distance and polarity between the “haves” and “have nots,” and this time the “have” is the truth. Ignorant people are easier to control.

I worry this will result in more people denying climate change and vaccine safety and efficacy.

More people could vote for candidates based on lies because they simply cannot access valid, reliable sources.

It could mean more ways our government can hide the truth from its citizens, expanding opportunities for corruption and illegal acts by government officials.

Government overreach into our privacy and security could become prominent. It could lead to more ways the government can control how we live our lives.

Kathryn C. Peisert, of San Rafael, develops educational materials and programs for nonprofit hospital boards.