Okay, but do you actually know what monies changed hands under the now-ended agreement? Perhaps PBS was not paying ASU, as the person quoted said, it was a mutually beneficial relationship. ASU got to have a very cool internship opportunity right on site of its prominent J-school.
If PBS was not paying significant money to ASU, then it is unlikely to be related to federal politics.
That part is fairly easy to understand with a few google searches. Journalism programs are at a loss across the country and have been in decline for some time. When a university program is not profitable they close the program.
Low wages, less employment opportunity, and the decrease in interest of writing. Combine this with social media and the age of influencers - you suddenly have a huge decline across the board.
Journalism is not what you see on tv. Those are essentially actors and are the 1%. The rest are those writing in newspapers (in decline) and making barely livable wages with most on contract rather than salary. It’s an incredibly difficult line of work when it comes to wages and job security.
> When a university program is not profitable they close the program.
That's moving the goalposts. Universities are not for-profit organizations (with a few exceptions).
By insisting on focusing on 'profit', the enemies of liberal education and liberalism can shut down much of it. Business school is of course profitable, and science has patents. What about the history department?
That would be up to the school.
After all, it does have a $1.4 billion dollar endowment. (ASU is not struggling at all)
Every university has to decide what is profitable and what is a loss leader. You have to be well rounded to attract students, but also make money.
In this case, the school decided that this studio had less benefit to them than reward. If this studio attracted more students (tuition $$) then it would be a benefit.
People are getting mad at the White House, but in reality the school decided that this studio wasn’t worth keeping.
This is inherently political. The "revised priorities" are clearly because of our current economic and political climate. Your comment is intentionally obtuse or malicious.
