Liberal documentary filmmaker Ken Burns sparked a conversation recently by claiming that rural Americans will struggle to access news without PBS and NPR. Speaking to ‘The Bulwark,’ a publication often critical of former President Trump, Burns emphasized, “It’s a big deal… they killed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, incredibly shortsighted. It’ll hurt mostly rural communities.” His assertion that this decision could lead to “news deserts” has drawn considerable backlash online.
Critics quickly pointed out the irony of Burns’ claims. The filmmaker has directly benefited from public broadcasting through the airing of his documentaries. His vested interest in PBS and NPR raises questions about the motivation behind his statements. Social media users were quick to challenge his narrative. One commenter pointed out, “It’s 2025… no one in rural communities depends on PBS or NPR.” Many added that those public outlets cater mostly to affluent audiences, further underscoring a disconnect between Burns’ view and the reality of rural media consumption.
Responses varied widely, highlighting a broader sentiment about urban elitism. Commentator Frank J. Fleming articulated this frustration, stating, “It’s weird how they pretend rural communities care about PBS and NPR when it’s all programming enjoyed by affluent white people.” This remark encapsulates a recurring theme in the reactions—an observation that urban commentators often speak about rural Americans in patronizing terms while ignoring their actual media habits.
Additionally, many criticized what they termed the “soft bigotry” of assuming rural communities lack media options. A user noted, “Rural communities have the internet… this soft bigotry of assuming they all live in huts in the woods with rabbit ears as their only access to media is stupid.” This perspective challenges Burns’ assumption that the disappearance of federal funding for public broadcasting will create significant obstacles for rural news access.
While Burns portrayed rural America as dependent on PBS and NPR, reactions suggest a significant disconnection from the lived experiences and media habits of these communities. R succinctly summed up this sentiment by saying, “All he’s doing is proving he does not step foot in or talk to people from rural areas.” This highlights a growing frustration with elite narratives that depict rural life inaccurately.
Criticism of Ken Burns’ statements brings to light a critical discourse on the media landscape in America. Many argue that assuming rural communities rely solely on public broadcasting undermines the diverse ways in which they access news today. The rise of the internet and streaming has transformed media consumption, making local and independent sources just as accessible. Commentary about the electoral divide further underscores this point, with mentions of how rural areas predominantly vote Republican, indicating a clear separation in media consumption and political affiliation.
In the end, Burns’ claims reveal a broader discussion on the relevance and portrayal of rural America in media narratives. His remarks may have missed the mark, suggesting that rural communities are not as helpless as some would portray them. This calls for greater acknowledgment of their independence and media savvy. The conversation continues, challenging prevailing assumptions held by elites about who really depends on what resources for news and information.
"*" indicates required fields
