Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Camille Banger, Assistant Professor in Business Information Technology, University of Wisconsin-Stout

The tech world says generative artificial intelligence is essential for the future of work and learning. But as an educator, I still wonder: Is it really worth bringing it into the classroom? Will these tools truly help students learn, or create new challenges we haven’t yet faced?

Like many other people in higher education, I was skeptical but knew I couldn’t ignore it. So, instead of waiting for all the answers, I decided to dive in and discover what preparing students for an AI-powered world really means beyond the hype. Last semester, I developed a business technology class where the latest generative AI tools were woven into the curriculum.

What I found is that AI productivity products have a learning curve, much like other applications that students, and ultimately white-collar workers, use in knowledge work. But I needed to adjust how I taught the class to emphasize critical thinking, reflection on how these tools are being used and checks against the errors they produce.

The project

It’s no secret that generative AI is changing how people work, learn and teach. According to the 2025 McKinsey Global Survey on AI, 78% of respondents said their organizations use AI in at least one business function, and many are actively reskilling their workforce or training them with new skills to meet the demands of this shift.

As program director of the Business Information Technology bachelor’s degree program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin’s polytechnic university, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to prepare students for the workplace. I’m also an AI enthusiast, but a skeptical one. I believe in the power of these tools, but I also know they raise questions about ethics, responsibility and readiness.

So, I asked myself: How can I make sure our students are ready to use AI and understand it?

In spring 2025, University of Wisconsin-Stout launched a pilot for a small group of faculty and staff to explore Microsoft 365 Copilot for business. Since it works alongside tools such as Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, OneDrive and Teams, which are products our students already use, I saw an opportunity to bring these latest AI features to them as well.

To do that, I built an exploratory project into our senior capstone course. Students were asked to use Copilot for Business throughout the semester, keep a journal reflecting on their experience and develop practical use cases for how AI could support them both as students and future professionals. I didn’t assign specific tasks. Instead, I encouraged them to explore freely.

My goal wasn’t to turn them into AI experts overnight. I wanted them to build comfort, fluency and critical awareness about how and when to use AI tools in real-world contexts.

What my students and I learned

What stood out to me the most was how quickly students moved from curiosity to confidence.

Many of them had already experimented with tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini, but Copilot for Business was a little different. It worked with their own documents, emails, meeting notes and class materials, which made the experience more personal and immediately relevant.

In their journals, students described how they used Copilot to summarize Teams video meetings, draft PowerPoint slides and write more polished emails. One student said it saved them time by generating summaries they could review after a meeting instead of taking notes during the call or rewatching a recording. Another used it to check their assignment against the rubric – a scoring tool that outlines the criteria and performance levels for assessing student work – to help them feel more confident before submitting their work.

Several students admitted they struggled at first to write effective prompts – the typed requests that guide the AI to generate content – and had to experiment to get the results they wanted. A few reflected on instances where Copilot, like other generative AI tools, produced inaccurate or made-up information, or hallucinations, and said they learned to double-check its responses. This helped them understand the importance of verifying AI-generated content, especially in academic and professional settings.

Some students also said they had to remind themselves to use Copilot instead of falling back on other tools they were more familiar with. In some cases, they simply forgot Copilot was available. That feedback showed me how important it is to give students time and space to build new habits around emerging technologies.

What’s next

While Copilot for Business worked well for this project, its higher cost compared with previous desktop productivity apps may limit its use in future classes and raises ethical questions about access.

That said, I plan to continue expanding the use of generative AI tools across my courses. Instead of treating AI as a one-off topic, I want it to become part of the flow of everyday academic work. My goal is to help students build AI literacy and use these tools responsibly and thoughtfully, as a support for their learning, not a replacement for it.

Historically, software programs enabled people to produce content, such as text documents, slides or the like, whereas generative AI tools produce the “work” based on user prompts. This shift requires a higher level of awareness about what students are learning and how they’re engaging with the materials and the AI tool.

This pilot project reminded me that integrating AI into the classroom isn’t just about giving students access to new tools. It’s about creating space to explore, experiment, reflect and think critically about how these tools fit into their personal and professional lives and, most importantly, how they work.

As an educator, I’m also thinking about the deeper questions this technology raises. How do we ensure that students continue developing original thoughts and critical thinking when AI can easily generate ideas or content? How can we preserve meaningful learning while still taking advantage of the efficiency these tools offer? And what kinds of assignments can help students use AI effectively while still demonstrating their own thinking?

These aren’t just theoretical concerns. Early studies have identified the risks of “cognitive offloading” when performing tasks, such as writing essays with AI. Studies have also shown that using AI can reduce cognitive effort and even affect students’ confidence levels in their thinking. This highlights the importance of incorporating critical thinking activities alongside AI use.

These questions aren’t easy, but they are important. Higher education has an important role to play in helping students use AI and understand its impact and their responsibility in shaping how it’s used.

Striking the right balance between fostering original thought and critical thinking with AI can be tricky. One way I’ve approached this is encouraging students to first create their content on their own, then use AI for review. This way, they maintain ownership of their work and see AI as a helpful tool rather than a shortcut. It’s all about knowing when to leverage AI to refine or enhance their ideas.

One piece of advice I received that really stuck with me was this: Start small, be transparent and talk openly with your students. That’s what I did, and it’s what I’ll continue doing as I enter this next chapter of teaching and learning in the age of AI.

Camille Banger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Generative AI is coming to the workplace, so I designed a business technology class with AI baked in – https://theconversation.com/generative-ai-is-coming-to-the-workplace-so-i-designed-a-business-technology-class-with-ai-baked-in-259481

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jennifer Duyne Barenstein, Senior Lecturer of Social Anthropology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

More than 1.8 billion people lack access to adequate and affordable housing. Yet too few countries have taken meaningful steps to ensure dignified housing for their most vulnerable citizens.

We research how cooperative housing can serve as one solution to the affordable housing crisis. There are a variety of cooperative housing models. But they generally involve residents collectively owning and managing their apartment complexes, sharing responsibilities, costs and decision-making through a democratic process.

Some countries have embraced cooperatives. In Zurich, Switzerland, almost one-fifth of the city’s total housing stock is cooperative housing.

Other countries, such as El Salvador and Colombia, have struggled to integrate housing cooperatives into their countries’ preexisting housing policies. In fact, although Latin America has a long-standing tradition of community-driven and mutual aid housing, housing cooperatives haven’t taken root in many places, largely due to weak political and institutional backing.

Uruguay is an exception.

With a population of just 3.4 million, the small Latin American nation has a robust network of housing cooperatives, which give access to permanent, affordable housing to citizens at a range of income levels.

An experiment becomes law

Housing cooperatives in Uruguay emerged in the 1960s during a time of deep economic turmoil.

The first few pilot projects delivered outstanding results. Financed through a mix of government funds, loans from the Inter-American Development Bank and member contributions, they were more cost-effective, faster to build and higher in quality than conventional housing.

These early successes played a key role in the passage of Uruguay’s National Housing Law in 1968. This law formally recognized housing cooperatives and introduced a legal framework that supported different models. The most common models to emerge roughly translate to “savings cooperatives” and “mutual aid cooperatives.”

In the savings model, members pool their savings to contribute around 15% of the capital investment. This gives them access to a government-subsidized mortgage to finance the construction. The cooperative then determines how repayment responsibilities are distributed among its members. Typically, members purchase “social shares” in the cooperative, equivalent to the cost of the assigned housing unit. If a member decides to leave the cooperative, their social shares are reimbursed. These shares are also inheritable, allowing them to be passed on to heirs.

In contrast, the mutual aid model enables households without savings to participate by contributing 21 hours per week toward construction efforts. Tasks are assigned to individuals according to their abilities. They can range from manual labor to administrative tasks, such as the ordering of construction materials.

Despite their differences, both models share a fundamental principle: The land and housing units are held collectively and are permanently removed from the private market.

Typically, once cooperatives are established, each household must contribute a monthly fee that covers the repayment of the state’s loan and maintenance costs. In exchange, members have an unlimited and inheritable contract of “use and enjoyment” of a quality apartment. If a member decides to leave, they are partially reimbursed for the contributions they’ve made over time, typically with a 10% deduction that the cooperative keeps.

This ensures that cooperative housing provides long-term security and remains affordable, especially for those at the lowest rungs of the income ladder.

State support and public buy-in

Today, Uruguay has 2,197 housing cooperatives, supplying homes to approximately 5% of the country’s households. Around half of them are located in the nation’s capital, Montevideo, where 1,008 cooperatives operate. Cooperatives can have as few as 12 homes or as many as 700 apartments.

This growth has been possible thanks to state support, federations of cooperatives and nonprofit groups.

The state recognized that the success of housing cooperatives depended on sustained public support. The National Housing Law defined the rights and responsibilities of cooperatives. It also outlined the state’s obligations: overseeing operations, setting criteria for financial assistance and providing access to land.

Housing cooperative federations have also played a key role. FECOVI, the federation of the savings cooperatives, represents over 100 cooperatives, serving roughly 5,000 households. FUCVAM, the federation of mutual aid cooperatives, is much larger and more politically active, representing over 35,000 households across 730 cooperatives.

Beyond organizing and advocating for the right to housing – and human rights more broadly – FUCVAM offers its member cooperatives a wide range of support services, including training to strengthen cooperative management, legal counseling and conflict mediation.

Finally, a vital pillar of this model are the Technical Assistance Institutes, which were also recognized by the National Housing Law. These are independent, nonprofit organizations that advise cooperatives.

Their role is crucial: The construction of large-scale housing projects is complicated. The vast majority of citizens have no prior experience in construction or project management. The success of Uruguay’s cooperative model would be unthinkable without their support.

From the outskirts to the city center

Uruguay’s housing cooperatives have not only expanded, but have also evolved in response to changing needs and challenges.

In their early years, most cooperatives built low-density housing on the outskirts of cities. This approach was largely influenced by the ideals of the Garden City movement, a planning philosophy of the late 19th century that prioritized low-density housing and a balance between development and green spaces. In Uruguay, there was also a cultural preference for single-family homes. And land was more expensive in city centers.

These early cooperatives, however, contributed to urban sprawl, which has a number of drawbacks. Infrastructure has to be built out. It’s harder to reach jobs and schools. There’s more traffic. And single-family homes aren’t an efficient use of land.

Meanwhile, in the 1970s Montevideo’s historic city center started experiencing abandonment and decay. During this period, the country’s shifting socioeconomic landscape created a set of new challenges. More people relied on irregular incomes from informal work, while more single women became heads of households.

In response, housing cooperatives have shown a remarkable ability to adapt.

For women, by women

As urban sprawl pushed development outward, Montevideo’s historic center, Ciudad Vieja, was hemorrhaging residents. Its historic buildings were falling apart.

Seeking to revitalize the area without displacing its remaining low-income residents, the city saw housing cooperatives as a solution.

This spurred the creation of 13 mutual aid cooperatives in Ciudad Vieja, which now account for approximately 6% of all housing units in the area.

One of the pioneers of this effort was Mujeres Jefas de Familia, which translates to Women Heads of Household. Known by the acronym MUJEFA, it was founded in 1995 by low-income, single mothers. MUJEFA introduced a new approach to cooperative housing: homes designed, built and governed with the unique needs of women in mind.

Architect Charna Furman spearheaded the initiative. She wanted to overcome the structural inequalities that prevent women from finding secure housing: financial dependence on men, being primary caregivers, and the absence of housing policies that account for single women’s limited access to economic resources.

Remaining in Ciudad Vieja was important to members of MUJEFA. Its central location allowed them to be close to their jobs, their kids’ schools, health clinics and a close-knit community of friends and family.

However, the project faced major hurdles. The crumbling structure the group acquired in 1991 – an abandoned, heritage-listed building – needed to be transformed into 12 safe, functional apartments.

The cooperative model had to adapt. Municipal authorities temporarily relaxed certain regulations to allow older buildings to be rehabbed as cooperatives. There was also the challenge of organizing vulnerable people – often long-time residents at risk of eviction, who were employed as domestic workers or street vendors – into groups that could actively participate in the renovation process. And they had to be taught how to retrofit an older building.

Today, 12 women with their children live in the MUJEFA cooperative. It’s a compelling example of how cooperative housing can go beyond simply putting a roof over families’ heads. Instead, it can be a vehicle for social transformation. Women traditionally excluded from urban planning were able to design and construct their own homes, creating a secure future for themselves and their children.

Building up, not out

COVIVEMA 5, completed in 2015, was the first high-rise, mutual aid cooperative in a central Montevideo neighborhood. Home to around 300 residents, it’s made up of 55 units distributed across two buildings.

Members participated in the building process with guidance from the Centro Cooperativista Uruguayo, one of the oldest and most respected Technical Assistance Institutes. Architects had to adapt their designs to make it easier for regular people with little experience in construction to complete a high-rise building. Cooperative members received specialized training in vertical construction and safety protocols. While members contributed to the construction, skilled labor would be brought in when necessary.

Members of the cooperative also designed and built Plaza Luisa Cuesta, a public square that created open space in an otherwise dense neighborhood for residents to gather and socialize.

Housing cooperatives are neither public nor private. They might be thought of as an efficient and effective “third way” to provide housing, one that gives residents a stake in their homes and provides long-term security. But their success depends upon institutional, technical and financial support.

This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.

Jennifer Duyne Barenstein receives funding from The Swiss National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with the Centre for Research on Architecture, Society and the Built Environment, Department of Architecture, ETH Zurich

Daniela Sanjinés receives funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with the Centre for Research on Architecture, Society and the Built Environment, Department of Architecture, ETH Zurich.

– ref. What the world can learn from Uruguay as the global housing crisis deepens – https://theconversation.com/what-the-world-can-learn-from-uruguay-as-the-global-housing-crisis-deepens-258342

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy.

On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.

When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”

And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”

A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”

On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.

As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.

Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way.

Robert Bork

Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.

“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.

This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court.

Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.

Ronnie White

In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.

Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”

White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.

Miguel Estrada

Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001.

Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.

However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.

Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.

Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.

According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”

When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”

Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.

Bove stands out

As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.

This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue.

But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch.

This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference – https://theconversation.com/emil-boves-appeals-court-nomination-echoes-earlier-controversies-but-with-a-key-difference-261347

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.

“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.

Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.

But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on journalism that is independent of both market pressure and partisan talking points.

That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.

Trusting independence

Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Science Advances that tracked more than 6,000 political reporters likewise found “no evidence of liberal media bias” in the stories they chose to cover, even though most journalists are more left-leaning than the rest of the population.

A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light.”

Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.

Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.

While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.

Safeguards for editorial freedom

In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.

More than 70% of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal appropriation for 2025 of US$1.1 billion flows through to roughly 1,500 independently governed local stations, most of which are NPR or PBS affiliates but some of which are unaffiliated community broadcasters. CPB headquarters retains only about 5% of that federal funding.

Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.

And while stations share content, each also has latitude when it comes to programming and news coverage, especially at the local level.

As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.

Broadly shared civic commons

And then there are public media’s critical benefits to democracy itself.

A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.

Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.

In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.

Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”

The study highlighted how public media works to bridge divides and foster understanding across polarized groups. Unlike commercial media, where the profit motive often creates incentives to emphasize conflict and sensationalism, public media generally seeks to provide balanced perspectives that encourage dialogue and mutual respect. Reports are often longer and more in-depth than those by other news outlets.

Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.

In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. PBS and NPR are generally unbiased, independent of government propaganda and provide key benefits to US democracy – https://theconversation.com/pbs-and-npr-are-generally-unbiased-independent-of-government-propaganda-and-provide-key-benefits-to-us-democracy-261512