Friday, August 8, 2025

Part I

---

Public Broadcasting Loses Federal Funding: How Did This Happen and Why Does it Matter?

Well, National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service, PBS, NPR, well, they continue, but they’re going to have to continue without federal funding. In the midst of the massive financial bill that was passed by Republicans just weeks ago, one of the details in that bill was the defunding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That was the Omnibus Funding Unit, through which the federal government had channeled billions of dollars in terms of support for public television. Now, the idea of public media really exploded in the 1960s, and there had been precursors to this, but at the federal level, it really became a part of the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson. And it came with the idea that culture will be brought to a lot of America, which was described as kind of a desert, largely modeled after the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, other European models as well.

But the BBC was central. And by the way, the BBC has been a public broadcaster in Britain going all the way back to the development of the technologies themselves. So the innovation in Britain was commercial media. The innovation in the United States was really government media. That tells you something about both countries, but the BBC was known for a lot of middle brow. That’s a very interesting cultural statement between low brow, all that commercial stuff and high brow, which is the cultural elites, there’s middle brow, and so you did have a lot of really interesting series that were done on public television on both sides of the Atlantic. National Public Radio, very well known for its news service. Both of them, however, actually attracting in terms of adult eyes and ears, a pretty elite part of the American audience and a pretty liberal part of the American audience.

Now, I’ll tell you, I’ve paid a lot of attention to PBS and NPR for decades because I think they’re both very important as barometers of the culture. When I am reviewing the news of the day, I’ll often go to the NPR top of the hour broadcast because it just tells me what National Public Radio thinks is important. That tells me, again, at two different levels, we’re always concerned with, tells me about well, what they’re talking about, but the very fact that that’s what they’re talking about also tells me something. If it has NPR’s attention, if it has the attention of PBS, that tells us something. Now, one game changer when it came to PBS in terms of public television was the development of children’s programming, which became incredibly popular. And so a lot of that, at least for a time, especially when you had television before cable and later of course before streaming, this was access on the part of many Americans to a cultural product they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

But with two things that morally should never go together, and that is a massive liberal tilt and massive taxpayer money. Those things just should not go together. This has been an irritation to conservatives in the United States for decades, and I won’t go into all the atrocities. I’ll simply tell you that public television and public radio have given plenty of evidence of just how liberal they are. That’s one of the reasons why I often will just look at their coverage and even just take a glance at their headlines and then look at the people they cite. They’ll present many very controversial issues, and it is so lopsided. It’s simply stunning. There’s no surprise that conservatives who wanted to get rid of it for a very long time. Now, the proponents of NPR and PBS, under the umbrella the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, they’ve been arguing that there are underserved publics and all the rest, but with internet access, that becomes a lot less plausible.

The problem right now is that most Americans have access to too much, not too little, and the liberal bias is just something that honestly, the public media have denied and bragged about simultaneously. And so I’ll just tell you that it can be quantified pretty easily, but it does tell you a lot that there’s now been a defunding. So what’s the result going to be? Well, if you listen to an NPR station or you watch a PBS station, a local affiliate, they’re going to be asking for a lot of money. And it’s going to be interesting because I’ve had some people who are very much proponents of public media who say they may come out ahead because they may actually raise more money than they lose. Well, that’s conceivable, but you know what? In America, I’ll say the public means there still should be public accountability, but at least if taxpayers aren’t paying for it, that does change the moral equation somewhat. So it’s going to be very interesting to see.

I will be very interested to see what is and is not produced in terms of a lot of these things like Ken Burns documentaries and all the rest. It’d be very interesting. My guess is that there is still a market for that kind of cultural product, but nonetheless, you’re going to hear wailing and gnashing of teeth when it comes to the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I’m also going to make another prediction, and that is that when there is a Democratic president and if there’s a Democratic president with Democratic majorities in Congress, I’m not sure they’ll put this back in place, not in the same way. And that is because there are probably more even financially expedient ways of furthering their agenda than going back into the old system of public broadcasting.

Part II

---

The Rise and Decline of Late Night Television: The Cancellation of the Stephen Colbert Show Indicates Important Cultural Shifts in Entertainment

Now, the other big media story that I want to talk about today is the crisis in late-night programming, the late shows, and of course the biggest issue here is CBS canceling Stephen Colbert.

And just about the time that CBS Paramount also went to a corporate transformation, it has something to do with the fact that the Colbert Report, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert as it is now called, has been losing $40 million a year. Now that’s $40 million a year that has been lost, and that tells you that this is not about the money. But you know what? And Stephen Colbert and the others in late-night television say that this is also political. I think they’re also right. I think this is political and it is financial, and we ought to take a closer look at this. Let’s look at the transformation of what happened in late-night television. The idea of late-night television emerged in the 1950s. It really came on the scene in the 1960s, but back when you had television broadcast licenses first given a lot of these stations went out fairly early in the evening, stopped broadcasting.

But the idea of course is that the broadcasting hours of the day would just expand and expand. Of course, now it’s 24/7, but then there arises an interesting question, and that is that if there were to be a late-night audience, what would that late-night audience watch? What would they be drawn to? And it turned out there are basically two answers to that question. Number one, news and number two, comedy, variety, entertainment. And that comedy and variety tended to be different than what took place during prime time, precisely because at least in theory, the kiddos were in bed. And so it took on a more sexualized, let’s just say more PG sometimes far more R, and worse rating in terms of the comedy and all the rest. And so the paradigm in all of this became the fact that you ended up having local news generally at something like the 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock hour for about 30 minutes.

And then you shifted to late-night broadcasting. By the way, with the advent of cable and some other things, that was often the rerun of popular prime time shows and comedies that would be shown again. But by and large it was news then followed by something like a talk show. Of course, it was The Tonight Show on NBC that really pioneered this particular medium. And of course you had Jack Parr another host in the past, but it became Johnny Carson who really was kind of the mythological figure in late-night entertainment with The Tonight Show. And once again, he was not so political. That’s really the point, not so political, sometimes risque. Johnny Carson would have a guest on, and everyone would know exactly what they’re talking about. And he tended to have guests on that were, I’ll just say more interesting in the entertainment sphere than in the news sphere.

And the conversation was often, as I say, a little bit risque. And a lot of Americans stayed up late to watch Johnny Carson who undoubtedly had a lot of talent, but he knew that he couldn’t get too political. And so it is really interesting. If you look at The Tonight Show, under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, he had bipartisan opportunism when it came to comedy. He would lampoon Democratic presidents and Republican presidents. But there were other transformations that came to late night, and one of them was on ABC with Ted Koppel. And this came with the Iran hostage crisis, and it began with ABC News offering a late night update, and it turned into a late night update on a daily basis. And the next thing you know, it turned into a late night phenomenon that ran for many years. Ted Koppel with Dateline just became, again, symbolic of an era.

But on the comedy side, all this became transformed, especially after the advent of cable and even with streaming where you had not only a risque late night comedy, you had a politically leftist late night comedy, and that was pretty much across the board. And so you had figures like John Stewart and of course Stephen Colbert, but you also had Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon and others. But the point is that this was not bipartisan. It was with a very liberal slant, and the comedy turned darker as well. And no doubt in the hands of some of these hosts, comedians who had real talent, they employed that talent in a far more politicized way than was true in the emergence of late night television. Well, here’s the other thing. Late night television audiences disappearing. Now why would that be so? Well, at least part of me wants to say it’s because it became a political act to watch it.

But I think there’s nothing else. And that is that with the absolute avalanche of digital material available to people through streaming 24/7, it doesn’t matter what time it is. You can watch whatever you want to watch no matter what time it is. I think Stephen Colbert will probably be online like some of the other people canceled on television, and probably make a living at it. But the point is that it is a change in American culture. It used to be that a very high percentage of the American people at least knew who Johnny Carson was and had some idea what his show was about. With the segmentation and the polarization that has taken place in America today, it’s less likely that anyone fulfills that kind of role. I’m not even saying that’s good or bad. I’m saying that it is significant.

And as Christians, we recognize that one of the reasons it is significant is because what we watch tells us a lot about who we are, what we laugh at tells us an awful lot of who we are. What people think we want in entertainment tells us a lot about our society as well.

Part III

---

Is It Wrong for a Prisoner of War to Take a Cyanide Pill to Protect National Secrets? What About If It’s to Protect Civilian Lives? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 12-Year-Old Listener of The Briefing

Okay, now let’s turn to questions. 

I am always amazed by the questions sent in, and I think listeners know I often will take questions from young people in particular. I’m honored that they would send a question. I’m also amazed by how they think. So this is sent in by a mom on behalf of a 12-year-old boy, and this boy asked if during a war or conflict a man is taken captive by the enemy, would it be legitimate for him to commit suicide by swallowing, say a cyanide pill before succumbing to torture and death? Okay, this is a pretty well-informed 12-year-old, pretty thoughtful, and we’re told here this mom says this 12-year-old has been training for service in the Special Forces since he was eight. Also, this is a military family currently stationed outside the United States.

So I want to thank this family for its service, but I want to thank this young man, this 12-year-old, for asking this question and sending it in. His mom said, “I told him that suicide, regardless of the circumstance, destroys an image bearer of God. And yes, it would be wrong.” Mom, absolutely right, but then the boy came back with, “But what if you were a spy and you knew you would be tortured until you gave up classified information which would endanger the lives of many others? Would you not be sacrificing your life by committing ‘suicide’ in order to save the lives of others?”

Again, this is a pretty impressive 12-year-old. It’s a pretty deep question, and I appreciate his mom’s first response. It is wrong to commit suicide. It is wrong precisely because it is the destruction of an image bearer and self-murder is murder. The boy coming back with the second part of the question does take us into some harder thinking. And so it also takes us into what we might call ethics in extremis. That is to say ethics in the extreme. Now in war, you don’t suspend ethics, but it becomes a crucible for exaggerated presentations of ethical questions. On the boundary lines of human existence, you don’t abandon morality, but the questions can become far more acute, and sometimes they come with urgency and sometimes they come with speed. That makes us think we’re going to have to think ahead about these questions. I did a Thinking in Public a few years ago with the former head of counterintelligence for the CIA.

You’ll find that we’ll tag it here on the website today. And he very much committed to a Christian understanding of these things. Nonetheless, served our nation in one of the most crucial roles of counterintelligence. And I have to say I’m thankful he did, and I’m thankful he was as thoughtful about it as he was. But there in extremis, we have to ask, okay, did the 12-year-old boy in this case, did he recast the question? That’s really the way I would have to put it. I think ethically, I see his point, but it requires us to recast the question. In that case, it is not an individual committing suicide just to avoid torture. It is someone who would be taking an act in extremis, in the extreme to try to prevent the death of others. And that does recast the moral equation. Now, here’s where we have to be very careful.

It’s really easy to recast it. It’s very hard to put it back in where it belongs. And so on the Left, with moral relativism, you have the attempt to say, well, every situation is its own in extremis. Well, that’s just not true. That’s just not true. But I think we’d also have to say that this 12-year-old has raised a very legitimate point. And so if you are faced with the question about the value of your own life versus the protection of other lives potentially many other lives, well that becomes a very different thing. And this is where I’m not going to answer his question in a satisfying way. I’m not going to answer this mom’s question in a satisfying way. I’m going to say that I think Christian ethics, looking at this situation in the extreme would have to say it is a question as to whether or not it is genuinely an act of suicide, or it is an act seeking to preserve the life of others even at the cost of one’s own.

And so you could say you look at an infantry brigade, someone who is charging the enemy out ahead of others may be effectively forfeiting his own life, but I don’t think we’d really call that suicide. And so this is a situation in extremis, and this is one of the reasons why we have spy novels and espionage movies and why we’re fascinated with it and why I did a thinking and public interview with the former chief of counterintelligence for the CIA. It is because this is all fascinating, and it does require us to think very carefully and when necessary, divide the question into different parts. And so I hope this has been helpful. I’ll simply say it is never right. It is never right to commit suicide, but in the context in which the lives of others are at stake, I think this 12-year-old has come back with a question about the value of one’s life over the lives of others.

And that is a fundamental moral recast. And I’m so thankful this 12-year-old boy is already committed to serving our nation in Special Forces. I have to say, I’m praying that he never faces this kind of question, but isn’t it something that he would raise that with you and that you’d have this conversation about it? That’s just really encouraging to me. Okay, let me tell you that I have interns in my office and staff who get to look at these questions, and they may be responsible for putting that one on top, which may also tell you they found it really interesting as well. All right, next question.

Part IV

---

What Do We Do with the Books of Ministry Leaders Who Have Now Fallen Away from the Faith? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

This question comes from a listener and it raises a really kind of heartbreaking question, but it has to do with moral failure and in particular in the ministry. And it’s an interesting angle. What do you do with that person’s books? Once there’s been a catastrophic moral failure, what do you do with that person’s preaching?

But in particular with books, this is a listener saying that she had been, and her family had been particularly helped by one book, by a preacher who was later forced to leave the ministry in the midst of this kind of moral failure. And the question she asks is, “Do we simply throw out their once useful teaching because they’re human and sinned?” She mentions the example of David in the Old Testament. She then asks, “Does your answer change for teachers who have shown repentance versus those who remain apostate?” Okay, again, really hard question. Really good question. And once again, you’ll notice it’s a question and then a recast. And Christians will need to do that at times, and we need to note sometimes you just have to. So number one, do you just throw out their teaching? Absolutely not.

Absolutely not. Because insofar as they’re teaching what is scriptural and insofar as they’re teaching the faith, once we’re all delivered to the saints, the teaching is sound. But there is an awkwardness in this. So I’ll be honest, I don’t commend books I used to commend precisely because of that. I can’t tell people to go listen to this preacher precisely because of the incarnational nature of preaching, the link between the man and his voice and the text. But that’s not categorical in the sense that there might be a particular message, there might be a particular book, a particular passage in which I want to show someone something. I think this is just an incredible distillation of biblical truth. The early church had to face this. And in the early centuries of the church, the hardest question, there were really two, the hard questions came down to two.

Number one had to do with what would happen if someone is no longer considered a Christian because of a return to idolatry. And the second was historically the denial of the Christian faith during a time of Roman persecution. You really had a couple of things going on there. Someone going back into the world, you might say, or back into the practice of idolatry or someone who denied the faith under the threat of life and persecution. And the question came to the early church. Well, what about the preaching of those men? Was their preaching valid? What about persons who came to faith hearing the preaching of the gospel there? And of course, you transform that into the contemporary context. It’s the same question. What about those who came to Christ? What about those who heard the gospel? What about those who grew in the faith under those ministries?

But here’s where we have to step back and clarify. God’s word has never lost any of its power. God’s word loses none of its authority. God’s word inerrant, infallible sharper than any two-edged sword loses none of its authority and power on the basis of a preacher who commits horrifying sin. Now, the gospel may be discredited in the eyes of some for that reason, but you know what? The gospel is not discredited in our eyes. Scripture is not discredited in our eyes. It is different in this case though, because you have personal reputation, and it’s virtually impossible to separate those two. So that’s the awkwardness. And I’ll say the awkwardness is going to continue, but I’ll tell you, I may remove some books from visibility in my library, but insofar as they’re helpful, if they’re faithful to God’s word, they continue to be helpful. And I faced this several years ago in one particular case that blew up massively and others have since.

But I had questions posed to me, especially by college students who said, “This person’s teaching is very important in terms of my understanding of Christianity.” And I said, “Well, you know what? It’s the faith once we’re all delivered to the saints.” And so you shouldn’t be surprised insofar as this person taught accurately and preached the Scriptures, it stands. It stands in your mind, but this is a warning against sin. What a relevant urgent warning against sin. The fact we have to ask this question reminds us that inevitably in the fall of ministry, there’s the question as to what’s discredited? The minister or the message? Even keeping that clear, we understand it’s hard to separate the two at times.

Part V

---

Is It Wrong to Applaud During Worship Services? Who is Receiving Praise, God or the Worship Team? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 14-Year-Old Listener of The Briefing

I want to end this episode of The Briefing with a very adult question from a very young listener, a 14-year-old young woman who had been a D3 camper here for teenagers on the campus during the summer.

And I want to thank her for being a part of that. I have the honor of speaking to those teenagers who gather for these camp weeks on campus here at Southern Seminary and Boyce College. And she writes to ask about applause after singing and especially after enthusiastic singing in a worship service. And she says, “Is that right or wrong?” And she says that she notices a theater background where the audience claps praising the work and enjoying the show. She says, “I see this clapping in the church, and it baffles me as I wonder who the congregation is praising, God or the worship team?” Now, let me just tell you, I speak to this young woman and say let me tell you where I met this head on in the most clarifying way. It was with some folks who were visiting from the UK, from Britain, and they were visiting in just kind of a normal evangelical church.

And after there had been a particularly moving musical part of the service, there was applause, and British friends were absolutely taken aback. And then there was the sermon, and there was no applause. But then when someone’s introduced just for, I don’t know, doing something like chairing a committee, there’s applause. And once again, there was confusion as to what that means. Okay. I want to say that I think it’s a problem, but it’s a problem that’s so deep in the culture it’s not something I think about as a grievous problem in most situations. And it’s because most Americans think of applause as affirmation and agreement. It’s no longer just praise of something they like as an entertainment. In an American society, you clap when you agree, and you clap when you just want to be nice to someone. Now, does that distract from worship? I would say “yes, I think it’s a danger.” Now, I’m not on a crusade. I’m not going church by church saying don’t applaud because I think I know what’s meant. And I tried to communicate that to my British friends, I think with a stunning lack of success. 

But nonetheless, this doesn’t mean what it looks like. Now, the very fact that you have to say it doesn’t mean what it looks like. Raises a problem, but I’m not on a crusade against it. But I want to say that this young woman actually points to an astoundingly good response when she points out that she was in a situation and that she’s been apart of a  worship team. Well, she mentions going to a Christ honoring music concert, and she says, it ended with singing the doxology. And I think pastorally, that’s a very good place to go to make clear that we’re praising God and God alone, that all the glory goes to God and God alone.

And I’ll tell you, it tells us also something about human nature and even American culture that after we sing the doxology, I don’t think you’d hear applause. There’s a humbling effect from singing the doxology. It’s not just that one song. It’s not just the tune known as Old 100th. It’s doxology as a statement of glory to God. I think maybe the answer to this is not just the singing of the doxology. It is the constant explicit reference to the fact that this is all about the glory of God and the glory of God alone.