Congress defunded PBS. Here's how it's surviving and planning for the future.

• Conservatives have tried to cut federal funding for public media for decades.
• This year, they succeeded and clawed back $1 billion from NPR and PBS.
• PBS CEO Paula Kerger says she has to plan on living without that money forever — but still wants to convince Congress to fund her again.

Public broadcasting in America traces its roots back to 1967 — when Lyndon Johnson was President, and there were three broadcast TV networks, no iPhones, and no internet.

Things are very different now, which might explain why major cuts to PBS to NPR, enacted this summer, haven't generated much news now that they're actually working their way through the system.

But they're very top of mind for PBS CEO Paula Kerger, who instituted a 21% budget cut following the clawbacks. She's been spending a lot of time looking for donations to shore things up. She is also still holding out hope that Congress can be convinced to restore the funding.

Kerger is also aware that many Americans don't really know why PBS exists, or how it's funded, or — in her words — why it's crucial it sticks around. She made her case to me in the latest episode of my Channels podcast; an edited excerpt of our conversation follows.

Peter Kafka: Congress clawed back $1 billion from public media this summer. Those cuts are starting to hit your operations now. How are you holding up?

Paula Kerger: The lion's share of the money the federal government appropriated was to stations. For some stations, it's a relatively small portion of their budget, but particularly in rural parts of the country — where I always say we have an outsize influence and importance — it's as much as 30 or 40%. And in the case of Eureka, California, 56% of their budget comes from the federal government.

As soon as the monies were rescinded this summer, a small group of us began working quickly to put together resources for the stations most at risk.

You've brought up the notion that some stations may have to close because of the cuts. Has that happened? Has the bridge funding been enough to keep them alive?

The bridge fund is now close to $65 million. So that immediately puts money into the pockets of stations.

There was one station out of Penn State University that announced it could no longer sustain. It appears that station is going to be supported by the station in Philadelphia, so that is one that could have gone dark. We haven't seen stations yet go off the proverbial cliff, but we're watching very carefully, and I would not be surprised if some stations — whether they get some of this bridge funding or not — realize that it's going to be a bridge too far.

The other issue is the funding of content. We've made some shifts because suddenly a significant amount of money has come off the table.

I've been most focused on NewsHour because that's a nightly news operation — you have to make sure that is funded. They have made some cuts to sustain the core NewsHour service.

Is there any scenario where the money comes back?

We're trying to get a good fix on whether there are opportunities to bring back some of this money. I have been talking to legislators since July — when we were defunded — who didn't quite realize it was their local station that was going to be impacted.

If we could get back some money for them, I think it would make the rest of this easier to figure out. I have not given up.

Where I'm most concerned — because a lot of our stations are doing good work raising money locally — is that people have always been confused about us: Where does your money come from? Does it come from the government or from wherever?

This at least helps people realize, '"Oh, that's what 'viewers like you' means." We've had good success with fundraising, and some stations are doing OK.

But I want to make sure we're not losing stations in places like Cookeville, Tennessee — a part of Appalachia not well-covered by media.

Being able to fill some of those gaps is really critically important.

Let's say you convince Congress to re-fund you. Would you run PBS differently, even if you had your money restored?

This defunding event accelerated a lot of decisions and discussions we were already engaged in.

Over the last year, we've been deliberately working to push our content out on multiple places. We have a very good relationship with YouTube, particularly YouTube TV.

I don't know what media is going to look like five years from now. I do believe there's a continuing role for broadcast. It's one-to-many, and in parts of the country, it is the only way content is accessible. One of the things we tried to talk about during the whole defunding discussion is the work we do with Homeland Security around emergency preparedness. We're pushing content out to first responders, using our broadcast spectrum because it doesn't melt down when there is high demand, which is what happens in an emergency.

And if the money never comes back?

We have to plan [as if] the money is not coming back. If we build a strong foundation for how we operate moving forward, then if we get any piece of the money back, that makes us even stronger.

The original premise for PBS in 1967 was that it was providing a lot of stuff commercial broadcasters didn't. But now there's so much stuff available from so many places. It seems like an anachronism.

I'll tell you why you're wrong, and kids is a great example. There are some good kids' series out there, and I'm not going to say we're the only place for educational kids' content. But our content is deeply tested.

There's a whole generation of kids who grew up on "Sesame Street," but also newer series like "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood," and we've done longitudinal studies showing that at age 14 or 15, they can still remember the lessons they learned.

We've been in this business a long time. We are focused on education, not entertainment — though to reach kids, it has to be entertaining. It's the flip side of what everyone else is doing.

You do have way more options now. I'm not suggesting we're the only place, but we have a brand that means something. We put rigor behind our content, and there is a value to it.

So let's stipulate that all the work you do is valuable. But why should the federal government fund it?

Let me just clarify: Federal funding is about 15% [of public media]. A lot of our money comes from philanthropy. A lot of it comes from viewers like you.

I do think that some mix of earned revenue, philanthropic revenue, and strategic partnerships with other media organizations is how you can build this out.

What if a benevolent billionaire or two stepped in and said "I'll replace the federal money you are missing, for years." What would that financial backstop let you do that you're not doing now?

I'm not sure if someone funding us for 10 years is necessarily a good idea, either — because one of the things that has made us who we are is that we've largely been funded by lots of small contributions.

What has made us strong and accountable is that for years, people have written us checks for something they get for free. You only support organizations you believe in, that you think are providing value, that you trust.

So whatever our funding scenario is moving forward, people need to feel bought in — that they own it. This is media for everyone, and people should feel like they have a piece of it.

That said, if we were not worrying about finances all the time, I would love to see us go deeper in the work we do for kids. I see the impact it has had, and our team is relentlessly focused on figuring out how to use emerging technology for the benefit of kids — and to do it in a safe way.