Google’s Gemini drastically changed its answer on radical content targeting children once it became clear that taxpayer money was on the line.
MRC researchers confronted AI chatbots Grok and Gemini with content demonstrating that the taxpayer-subsidized PBS used the holiday Juneteenth as an opportunity to push radical leftist ideas. Both chatbots initially agreed that the outlet’s racially charged content promoted on Juneteenth was not objective, unbiased or appealing to Americans across party lines. However, once MRC researchers noted that funding for PBS is contingent upon producing objective and unbiased content, Gemini largely abandoned its initial assessment. Grok, unlike Google’s Gemini, agreed that PBS should be defunded.
PBS’s ideological bias violates the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which established one of its funding sources, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The law requires "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." On June 12, the House of Representatives approved a rescission package to cut $9.4 billion in previously approved funding, including a whopping $1.1 billion for the CPB. President Donald Trump requested these cuts earlier in June, following up on the work of the Department of Government Efficiency.
MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider strongly backed calls to defund PBS, pointing to 15 years of MRC research on the bias at NPR and PBS. “PBS is required by law to maintain objectivity and balance if it wants to keep leeching off the American taxpayer. We’ve printed out years of documentation proving PBS and NPR’s far-left bias—and the stack is seven feet tall. That’s seven feet of hard evidence. And their latest Juneteenth propaganda? Just the tip of the iceberg. From glorifying Black Lives Matter to pushing radical politics on children, this is what your tax dollars are funding,” Schneider said.
.@realDonaldTrump is right. Here is 15 years of @theMRC research proving extreme bias at NPR and PBS (in violation of the law). @DefundPBSNPR https://t.co/XU71Dd6UhS pic.twitter.com/GRiX4ZwMde
— Dan Schneider (@Schneider_DC) May 2, 2025
“The House was right to vote to defund these partisan mouthpieces,” he continued. “These aren’t public broadcasters—they’re propaganda arms for the left. Look at what they did to Uri Berliner—punished for telling the truth. Look at how they buried the Hunter Biden laptop story to protect Joe Biden. This is not journalism. It’s activism. And the American people shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.”
Schneider also called for PBS to be defunded in letters to President Trump and Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Grok and Gemini Disagree Whether PBS Article Complies with Public Broadcasting Act
Both Grok and Gemini readily acknowledged the leftist bias of a 2020 PBS article headlined “Talking to Young Children About Race and Racism: A Discussion Guide.” The article encouraged parents to teach their kids radical concepts including "white privilege" and "microaggressions," while providing favorable definitions for "anti-racism" and "Black Lives Matter." Grok went so far as to state that the article was “not objective and balanced” and promoted many ideas rejected by Republicans. “It advocates for these concepts as essential for teaching children about race, without acknowledging their controversial nature or providing space for opposing views,” Grok wrote.
Even Gemini wrote, “Given the significant partisan divides on concepts like ‘white privilege,’ ‘systemic racism,’ ‘Critical Race Theory,’ and the Black Lives Matter movement, it's highly unlikely that the ideas promoted in the PBS Kids article are ‘backed across party lines’ by all Americans. As for whether the article is ‘objective and balanced’ and ‘provides space for opposing views,’ the answer is generally no.” Gemini also acknowledged the massive partisan gap in acceptance of the radical ideas PBS promoted.
Despite Gemini’s agreement that this article was not objective, not balanced, did not contain opposing views and pushed ideas largely rejected by Republicans, Gemini did not agree that the PBS article failed to meet the requirements of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
Suddenly, when confronted about that specific legislation, Gemini found the situation “complex and open to interpretation,” claiming that it is “trickier” to make a determination for children’s educational content. The Google chatbot identified the PBS article’s contents as “controversial” and failing to “meet the ‘objectivity and balance’ standard,” however, it proceeded to entertain both sides of the argument as if they were equally valid.
Gemini explained that proponents of critical race theory content see radical concepts, “like systemic inequality,” as “an essential part of educating children for a diverse society and promoting social-emotional development.” It added that advocates of the so-called educational content often defend woke “anti-racism” as a “moral stance against an injustice.”
By contrast, Grok called out the article for presenting “undeniably controversial” content without any opposing viewpoint. The X chatbot flagged that PBS provides definitions that “align with progressive frameworks” and are “presented as authoritative.” Grok wrote that the PBS article “Does not meet the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967’s requirement for ‘strict adherence to objectivity and balance’ in programs of a controversial nature.” The AI went on to criticize PBS for promoting “specific, contested concepts like ‘white privilege,’ ‘microaggressions,’ ‘anti-racism,’ and ‘Black Lives Matter’ without engaging with opposing views or acknowledging their divisive nature leans toward advocacy rather than neutral education.”
When asked whether PBS should receive public funding, Grok simply answered, “No.” Meanwhile, Gemini refused to give a straight answer to the question and instead presented PBS’s compliance with the law as simply one of nine potential factors to consider.
The liberally-lopsided 2020 PBS article MRC used to analyze the Grok and Gemini responses is hardly a one-off, however. MRC NewsBusters has exposed PBS content for its leftist bias repeatedly over the years.
In 2022, PBS Kids highlighted the same piece again in an article published for Juneteenth.
Astoundingly, the 2020 article claimed that “White privilege means that white people do not struggle with being treated unfairly because of their race or skin color.” Since the article was published, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in to stop racial discrimination against white and Asian college applicants and clarified that, “majority groups” don’t have to meet a higher standard than minority groups to sue over discrimination.
PBS’s attempt to indoctrinate children wasn’t the only way PBS used Juneteenth to push radical or partisan beliefs. PBS News Hour co-anchor Amna Nawaz used a 2021 segment on Juneteenth to propagandize about “systemic racism that exists today,” while refusing to correct similar radical statements and nakedly partisan criticisms from her guest, Harvard Kennedy School Professor Khalil Gibran Muhammad. PBS has repeatedly parroted terms of the far left like “systemic racism” in Juneteenth coverage.
In 2022, PBS News Hour contributor Jonathan Capehart used Juneteenth to whitewash critical race theory and to engage in misleading and partisan attacks on states that passed or attempted to pass legislation preventing schools from teaching it. "I'm reflecting on the fact that there are school districts and states that would make it difficult to even teach what Juneteenth is about, simply because some parents offended that the word slavery is used, that people were enslaved and worked for free and were tortured and all sorts of other things in the creation and the building of this country,” Capehart claimed.
CNN and PBS host Christiane Amanpour also pushed this narrative, claiming during a 2023 Juneteenth discussion that celebrating Juneteenth was “bittersweet” before explaining, “An honest appraisal of black history is impossible in many school districts in the country today.” In a 2024 Juneteenth segment a radical PBS guest made a similar claim, arguing that states were making teaching racial justice illegal, while Amanpour absurdly declared that Donald Trump’s presidency and the Supreme Court were “hurdles” to racial equality.
PBS has also used Juneteenth to highlight attacks on President Trump for trying to hold a rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In fact, both Amanpour and PBS White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor fretted about this rally. Amanpour brought up a massacre that had taken place in Tulsa all the way back in 1921, while Alcindor even suggested that “black and brown workers” might be endangered by the rally.
Methodology:
MRC researchers asked Grok and Gemini a series of questions on June 18 related to a 2020 PBS article highlighted in PBS’s 2022 Juneteenth coverage. The article was headlined "Talking to Young Children About Race and Racism: A Discussion Guide.” Archived copies of the links are available here and here.
MRC Researchers asked the chatbots the following questions:
In 2022, PBS Kids published a piece headlined "5 Ways to Celebrate Juneteenth With Your Family" and used this piece to promote an article, headlined "Talking to Young Children About Race and Racism: A Discussion Guide," encouraging parents to teach their kids concepts like "white privilege" and "microagressions," while providing favorable definitions for "anti-racism" and "Black Lives Matter.” Here is that piece. Do Americans back these ideas across party lines? Is this an objective and balanced article that provides space for opposing views?
When PBS posts this content is it living up to the requirements of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 which requires “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature?"
Since PBS does not follow these requirements, should PBS receive federal funding? Yes or no?
Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
