Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus Heartbreak and Hope in Ruidoso again, we visit the Mountain village as residents and officials consider what they've endured and how to dig out from heavy flooding.

>>Emerson: If my mom didn't call we would have died.

If I didn't close the doors, we would have died.

if I wasn't with my sister, she would have died.

>>Nash: And after Congress defunded PBS, NPR, and their member stations, a conversation about whether public media should receive your tax dollars.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us this week.

I'm Nash Jones.

Our local public television station and about 1500 others across the country, along with the national PBS and NPR networks, will no longer receive federal funding come October.

Late last week, Congress approved President Trump's request to strip away the next two years of funds Congress had already allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The argument for clawing back the more than $1 billion ranged from cutting wasteful spending to help pay for Trump's big tax and spending bill, to accusations that PBS and NPR news have a liberal bias.

At a hearing back in March, chair of the House DOGE subcommittee, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, had this to say to the CEOs of PBS and NPR.

We believe that you all can hate us on your own dime.

While the decision has been made, Congress could fund CPB again in the future.

So this week, two local opinion columnists take sides and debate whether public media should receive federal support when their corporate counterparts do not.

Then our coverage of the 80th anniversary of the Trinity test continues this week.

We're going to take you to the unveiling of a sign acknowledging the New Mexicans whose lives and families have suffered for generations from the first atomic blast.

Then correspondent Russell Contreras gets Santa Fe Archbishop John Wester's perspective on nuclear weapons, both then and now.

But first, we take you to Ruidoso where folks are recovering from yet another catastrophic flood following last year's wildfires.

In Focus's Cailley Chella visited the southeastern New Mexico village last week and found residents, including the village's mayor.

Watching the clock, waiting for the feds to step in and help.

Days after Cailley returned on Wednesday.

Word finally arrived from Washington, D.C. President Trump, at the request of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, declared a disaster in Lincoln County.

The move will free up millions in federal aid for those trying to dig out from a year of fire and flooding damage.

Here's Cailley.

>>Jason: It's coming from here.

>> Fulcher: If my mom didn't call us, we would have died.

If I didn't close the doors, we would have died.

If I wasn't with my sister, she would have died.

>> Cailley: It's a cloudy Thursday morning in Ruidoso, as 13 year old Emerson Fulcher recounts the flooding that took his home and almost his life.

>> Jason: This boy's a hero.

He saved himself, he saved his sister and then, miraculously, was able to pull a couple of our pets out of it as well.

>>Cailley: When the fatal floodwaters rushed into the village just over two weeks ago, Emerson had just minutes to react.

>>Emerson: I was getting a phone call and so I picked it up.

It was my mom and she she was screaming over the phone, the water is coming and it's getting higher by the second.

So I ran over to my sister.

I was like, we need to get somewhere high.

So we ran into her room.

We hopped on to the bed and then we start hearing, like, bubbling.

While this we're still on the phone with my mom.

She's like, I love you, I love you.

And she's like, saying goodbye.

I'm like, oh my gosh, this is this is serious.

And so, I mean, we were floating there, and then eventually we got to like 2 or 3ft before, you know, the roof crushed us in the water, drowned us.

>>Cailley: As Emerson told me his story another flood notification came in through our phones.

The sound still haunts him.

It's something many in Ruidoso deal with.

>>Emerson: I mean, it's straight out of a horror movie.

I mean, imagine just a Amber alert alarm going off constantly.

Meanwhile, his dad was forced to wait outside, helplessly watching for any sign of life.

>>Jason: I mean, I hate to say it, but we were waiting for the kids to get sucked out of a window or a wall.

>>Cailley: The tourists staying at Riverview RV Park may not have been as familiar with the flood warnings, may not have recognized the imminent danger they were in.

>>Jason: This is my headboard.

And this wall fell down and crushed my bed.

>>Cailley: Three died, including two children.

We had loss of life on this property.

We're just so blessed and thankful that we came out of this with our kids, because it didn't look like that was going to be the case when the waters came rushing downhill on July 8th.

It marked the second such flood in just a 12 month span.

That all comes on the heels of catastrophic wildfires that left a massive burn scar and created the conditions for this kind of flooding.

And as you can see, you can see the watermark.

Just a few minutes down the road in Gavilan Mobile Home Park, Vandhana George's home met a similar fate on vacation with her husband in India.

She watched from thousands of miles away as the flood wreaked havoc on the house.

They were still working to restore after last year's flood.

>>Vandhana: We actually finished our remodeling.

If you take a look, you can see like our paint and everything is new and all the windows, doors, everything is brand new.

>>Cailley: This is what remains for many families at Gavilan Mobile Home Park.

Ruined belongings, shattered windows and moldy walls.

>>Arturo: Totaled.

The trailers totaled.

My Audi totaled, everything.

>>Cailley: Amanda Melton and her husband, Don, have managed the mobile home park for 14 years.

Milton says her tenants, like Arturo Olivas have become family.

The manager married me and my wife.

>>Monda: When my husband would get an elk and honey or a deer, he would cut off behind quarter and take it to their house.

And that's the kind of people that are in our part.

We provide for the ones in need.

>>Cailley: Now 72 years old and living with multiple health issues, Milton says she's mostly worried about her neighbors >>Monda: Seeing them devastated has been real hard on me.

It has.

I see their pain.

I see what they've lost.

And a lot of them were pretty darn poor.

>>Cailley: Some tenants were able to stay with nearby friends Others were given temporary housing at a local hotel.

>>Monda: Everybody's been trying to get us to retire for a long time.

Friends and family.

So now we're we're pushed into that retirement.

And, my husband gets Social Security and I get a small check of $520 of Social Security.

So we've got to find a place we can afford.

Average rent for a two bedroom apartment in Riyadh also is about $2,000 a month.

Compare that to just a few hundred dollars residents were paying at Gavilan.

>>Monda: There are people here that need the HUD housing and there's no where to go.

>>Cailley: HUD is short for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The federal agency responsible for making sure Americans have equal access to an affordable place to live.

The department also helps communities recover after natural disasters.

>>Monda: I don't want to leave here.

This is my home.

>>Cailley: Still, Reed also hasn't given up hope.

>>Arturo: My country hasn't let me down before.

I'm all red, white and blue.

And I have faith.

>>Cailley: And Milton has had a little extra help.

She flew in on wings, let me tell you.

Going to find resources where you can go.

Motels You can stay in, places where we can go if we needed to eat something.

And she's so terribly helpful.

>>Cailley: That winged woman is Cynthia Schumacher.

Though she lives about five hours away.

She spent five days and nights in Ruidoso in the immediate aftermath of the flood.

Gathering supplies, organizing resources and lifting spirits.

>>Cynthia: I think it was a God for sure that led me down there.

I've been going up there since I was a little girl, and I've been taking my son up there since he was a baby.

And I just have a great love for Ruidoso and so That's why I felt the need to go and take donations up there.

And I saw Monda outside with some National Guardsmen.

They were in uniform and she was crying.

And she's like, we just need all the help that we can get.

>>Cailley: Local community foundations have also stepped in to help, doling out $1,000 to those affected and the village's mayor, Lynn Crawford has called on FEMA to help as well.

>>Lynn: We don't have a big, huge pot of money for that.

We've got to go to Congress to get the money allocated so that we can try to stop all of this stuff, or at least do our best to slow it down in the future.

>>Cailley: On July 23rd, 15 days after the fatal flood and a month after the first severe flooding of the year, FEMA stepped in to assist.

The agency will help with grants for temporary housing and home repairs, Low cost loans to cover uninsured property losses and other programs.

Still, the residents I spoke to were frustrated, questioning why officials haven't done more to keep people safe.

>>Arturo: Why did they invest so much money in these barriers when they could have got the people out?

>>Jason: We were under the assumption and the impression from the village that they had spent millions and millions of dollars on mitigation efforts, and, I mean, we felt like we were left to drown.

Last year we applied for the buyback program.

We applied for the Hesco barrier bags.

We applied for the grants.

We applied for the loans, and we were just left to do it all on our own.

And we did.

We got, I don't know, 7, 8000 bucks from FEMA >>Cailley: Since last year's fires and flooding, the village has put new physical barriers in place.

>>Lynn: We put up, into NRCS program, a lot of hesco baskets that were used to be as barriers against the water when it jumps the banks of the river.

Also jersey barriers, concrete blocks.

And we have done things with desilting trying to distribute the water out into wider paths to take that power out of it.

And we just didn't have time nor the money to get it done.

>>Cailley: They've also begun work on a buyout program to get homeowners out of unsafe areas, but with limited resources, much has yet to be realized.

>>Lynn: That's what FEMA does.

Well, then we've got to go to Congress to get the money allocated.

We initially requested about $250 million for that.

We were told there was going to be about $137,000,000 appropriated for that.

>>Cailley: Last year, the village urged residents to get flood insurance, and in March, Ruidoso posted a flood map showing which properties were most at risk.

So Monda's home was about here, but there were homes in the park that went all the way back into the floodway.

This blue area in the purple is flood plain.

And then down the street at Riverview RV Park.

This is about where Jason and Emerson's home was.

But they had RVs that extended all the way into the floodway.

And then if you zoom out to see the entire neighborhood, you can see that it's only really along the river of homes that are affected.

But some say they were never made aware of the danger.

>>Jason: I mean, you think my wife and I would have ever left our kids in the house if we didn't think it was safe, >>Cailley: and others were simply unable to afford the insurance.

Much less a move.

>>Arturo: We couldn't get flood insurance, especially in that trailer park.

Last year, the price of moving the trailer out of there was $2,000.

I don't know who got the bright idea to raise the price to $10,000 per trailer to where I couldn't afford it.

>>Cailley: Mayor Crawford is aware of the problem, but says his hands are tied without money from the feds.

>>Lynn: Everybody wants you to walk up and hand them a check so they can move to some other place.

It doesn't work that way.

>>Cailley: He says Ruidoso is ju part of a much bigger problem.

>>Lynn: We don't get Ahold of this, This whole Western part of the United States is going to go up.

The weather is changing.

>>Cailley: Despite the uncertainty with the changing climate, Crawford still insists Ruidoso is a safe place for residents to live and tourists to visit.

People are walking their dogs, the pickleball courts, if they're dry, they're playing pickleball.

The golf course is being played.

People are going on with their lives.

It's one portion of the community that we need to fix, and that's the point that we're trying to It's a safe community if you're paying attention.

So, you know, of course we belong here.

And of course it's going to endure.

I promise you, you know, in 3 to 5 years will be brand new.

>>Cailley: Generally in New Mexico, rain is welcomed, even celebrated, as is often sorely needed.

But in Ruidoso, it's different.

>>Jason: There's nothing safe here.

Nothing.

>>Cailley: Storm clouds now stir anxiety.

For some, the sound of thunder can trigger their PTSD.

While I was there on the 17th.

The flood waters rose again.

So I just got back to my room.

And it's interesting because they sent out multiple emergency messages over the phone.

But the first one came maybe half an hour ago.

Nothing happened.

The next one came, was raining a little bit, but not much.

And then all of a sudden, Woosh!

Feet of water.

And all around me.

Residents wrestled with the same uncertainty.

Unsure how or where to even begin moving forward.

>>Jason: We are so blessed that we have our children, but like, we don't know what to do next.

>>Cailley: As is so often the case in the immediate aftermath of these increasingly common disasters.

The story I found here ranged from anger and frustration to optimism and gratitude, from families navigating uncertain futures together and those who are risking their lives for each other.

To neighbors who are going the extra mile to help out, this mountain town story is one of resilience and heartbreak, but also of unyielding hope.

In Ruidoso, I'm Cailley Chella reporting.

>>John: What it is really is this continual building of more and more weapons, building up the weapons until one day our luck's going to run out and we're going to find ourselves in a nuclear conflagration.

And that'll be the end of it.

>>Nash: You'll hear from Archbishop John C. Wester on the Catholic Church's long standing opposition to nuclear bombs a little later in the show, and thanks to Cailley Chella for her reporting from Ruidoso and for the residents who shared their harrowing stories with us.

Opinions abound on whether Congress should have pulled back federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last week.

And while this marks the first time Congress has defunded public broadcasting since its inception in 1967, the arguments for doing so aren't new.

While the debate in Congress may be over for now, it continues among the American people.

So this week, we have invited two local writers with prominent opinions to hash it out right here on the program.

Inez Russell Gomez is the editor for the Santa Fe New Mexicans opinion page, and Jeff Tucker used to edit the Albuquerque Journal's op ed section.

He's now a regular contributor to it.

Since our funding right here at NMPBS is all caught up in this debate to avoid a conflict of interest, We've put up firewalls.

No NMPBS staff had editorial input in this segment.

We didn't see the questions in advance.

We didn't ask them, and we didn't make any editing decisions for what's included in the broadcast.

Instead, we enlisted the help of correspondent Gwyneth Doland to produce the conversation.

And Trip Jennings, executive editor of New Mexico In Depth, to host it.

>>Trip: Thank you, both of you, for joining us today, Inez Thank you.

Jeff.

Thank you.

We are here to talk about, I think, an important subject because I think the nation, the country is having a debate on the importance of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, what they fund public media.

Jeff, I know that in a few weeks ago, you wrote a column saying, why you thought it should be defunded.

And I would like you to actually talk about the points.

>> Tucker: Sure.

I have another column coming up this Sunday, kind of, part two, and I'll focus a little bit more on New Mexico PBS, specifically.

But basically, I believe if you're a tax funded media organization, you've got a very, very high bar for political balance, something you wouldn't expect from Mark Ronchetti's podcast or Joe Monahan's blog, or our even our own independent pages because we are privately owned and privately funded.

But I think if you receive public funding, the bar is very high to, maintain a political balance.

And frankly, I believe, National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and New Mexico Public, PBS have failed to meet that standard.

>> Trip: Actually, I just maybe if you'd like to make a kind of thesis statement on why you think this was not a good idea, and then we can have a conversation about this.

>> Inez: Okay, you know basically I'm a journalist.

So I think that the more journalists you have doing their job, which is reporting news, telling stories, you know, bringing to light things that we otherwise don't know, that's really important.

And with the defunding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, many small states across the country, including here in New Mexico, will not have the money they need to do their jobs.

So we can look at, you know, supposed bias at NPR, PBS, and forget about those stations in South Dakota or Alaska or in New Mexico.

And that's really my focus, is that if you're going to defund something and break it, what is your replacement strategy?

And these are towns where there's not a market solution, where you have lots of businesses who could buy ads, and it's the only news source because we're losing newspapers across the country.

So I think this is a move that makes us weaker as well as is based on emotion, because there's no study, there's no report, there's no proof that there's bias.

And all of these levels of reporting, there's your opinion.

After watching it, you know.

But that's not proof.

So reform it if you think there's a problem.

But don't just slice the budget.

>> Tucker: And I think that's your strongest argument is that the rural areas, the the news deserts.

And that may be an area where the state wants to backfill.

But overall, NMPBS, it receives 12% of its funding from the federal government, I think another 11% from the state.

So this isn't a complete wipe out?

>> Trip: Yes, 18% for NMPBS and 12% for KUNM.

>> Tucker: Okay.

>> Trip: So 18%, I do want to say that this decision to defund, Corporation for Public Broadcasting does take place in a larger kind of journalism conversation right now, which is, you know, the latest study has shown that, from Rebuild Local News and Muck rock, that the U.S. has lost 75% of its local journalism in the last 20 years And then, we also have, you know, that's complement something out of Northwestern University of Medical School that shows that 3300 newspapers have actually disappeared in the last, you know, 20 years around the same time.

So the question does become, I do think that this is a big question because there are going to be rural areas.

This is not just New Mexico and tribal areas that lose coverage.

They maybe have minimal staffing at these things.

These are their only stations.

So what is the solution for this?

Because it does seem to be sort of like you move, you make a decision and the outcome is not really deliberated.

>> Tucker: Absolutely.

And I think NMPBS and NPR and PBS are at a pivotal point, and they're mid-century mid lives, of which way they're going to go.

Are they going to go the donor based route, or are they going to go with public funding because you really can't worship both of those guys because your donor base may not want, what all your taxpayers want.

And that's kind of my point is that when you are a state run media, essentially when you're getting public funding, your whole constituency is taxpayers.

Every corner of the state, one way or another, pays into the, this station and others as it turns a solution.

I kind of, you know, I've been a fan, you know, a viewer and a consumer of PBS and NPR.

I watched a New Mexico focus all the time, and I don't want to see it go away.

I think it has a place in the ecosystem.

Absolutely.

I think it does need to, be more politically balanced.

Just my opinion.

And maybe at some point it can regain that funding.

But I don't want to see it eliminated.

I like to see it improved.

And that's throughout the whole system of PBS.

>> Trip: So I you know, I want to say that that when we say more balance, I always struggle with, not not on a, conservative liberal, a continuum.

It's more that because I've been reporting policy making at, you know, statehouses for 25 years.

When we talk about political balance, we, we have multiple constituencies in, in any conversation, including public media, which is not necessarily state run media, like maybe in Russia or whatnot.

This is a little different because it was created in 1967.

The public owns it.

They do have editorial kind of independence.

My question is, is, you know, when we have this is almost like one constituency.

It seemed like to me, because this has been a long sought goal of the conservative movement since the 70s.

>> Tucker: Well, it's the constituency is, the metro.

That's fine.

New Mexico PBS Can continue to do doing what it's doing.

But if you want the whole state to get behind it and to watch it and to support it, I think it geographically needs to do a much better job.

And, I think it needs to ask itself after every segment, did we do a good job, conveying the sentiments of the 47% of Republicans who voted for Trump?

I know that's very contentious and divisive, but you've got to appeal to all constituencies if you want to continue public funding.

>> Inez: I think to the point of, of local reporting, as what I've seen at the station here is that they cover stories that other media might miss.

So for someone who's really interested in environmental issues, who's interested in tribal issues, indigenous issues, I see stories there that I don't see anywhere else.

So it's not to me about Partizan politics or left or right.

It's about who is covering stories that we might otherwise miss.

And I really appreciate the public media in New Mexico doing that.

I also know that there are news deserts in our state and also emergency deserts.

So if there's a big flood or fire, the emergency signal comes through some of these PBS or not PBS, but public stations.

So what happens has do we have a plan to replace those?

I don't like a system where you just take all the money away and say, you're on your own, guys, go fix it.

>> Trip: I mean, the point she brings up, we've talked about this in the green room beforehand, which is, you know, they do, PBS and let me just say the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does have a, an alert system that goes out.

And that's part of Yeah.

Well, let me just say that that's part of the funding.

There's a, you know, could it impact the alert system, possibly.

>> Tucker: Surley there's got be a way to maintain our early warning systems while having political programing on a publicly owned station?

Surely there has to be in second, we saw in the Texas Hill Country catastrophe our early warning systems are terrible, outdated.

The idea of, alerting people at 3 a.m. in the morning on a public radio station.

I think that that's completely out of motive.

And and we've been find a new way.

>> Inez: But where the public radio station can come in handy if it's the only media you get, is it could tell you the next day where to get clean water, where to find your children if they're missing.

There's a lot of information in a disaster that these stations convey.

And of course, there's another way to do it.

There's always another way to do it.

But why would you break it before you know what the other way to do it?

I didn't even, in the conversations.

I didn't even hear them talking about it.

>> Tucker: No, I don't think it was well thought through at all, on that point at all.

but we're in the internet, the internet age now.

I mean, do we really need, Well, because those who.

>> Inez: Yeah, those places don't have internet half the time though, >> Trip: I want to say also, these messages do go to your phone.

And PBS is responsible for getting that message out to other like commercial air, state TV stations.

So it's, you know, if you see it on maybe KRQE or KOB whatever it will be, whichever one covers it.

It probably likely came from the PBS station.

>> Tucker: And I think those alerts are so vague and generic, they're just not very helpful.

There's a severe warning, from, San Miguel Mora and Guadalupe county.

What's that mean for me on my street in my neighborhood.

So I think we tend to ignore them.

I think when your phone goes off in the middle of the night.

I had one a couple nights ago.

You don't even read it, just hit okay to close it, because this could become so, common.

I suggest in a common drones.

I saw a report, yesterday of putting sirens all along the Guadalupe river in Texas.

I think, you know, you just kind of modernize your... >> Trip: I mean, I talked to a if we were going to talk about emergencies and emergency alert systems, I mean, I talked to a friend who went to camps at Guadalupe river area from age 4 to 32 and was a camp director there.

And, you know, honestly, there was one camp that saved everybody and another camp that did not.

And it takes, a lot of moving parts >> Inez: and also not building i that, that that too.

>> Trip: that, that too.

Yes.

>> Inez: And moving the buildings when you know you're in a floodplain.

But I think that the deal to me with PBS and the corporation for Public Broadcasting, if you look back at its founding, the idea was it TV was a vast wasteland, and we're going to do something better, something that a market might not support, but that is needed.

And you think about the signature programs, whether it's, you know, finding Big Bird or, you know, when my kid was little, it was Q the different shows that people saw and the introduction to all the British programs, just the way we grew up, you know, seeing something outside of our sitcom world, I really feel enriched because of that.

And I hate to see that go away for the next generation.

>> Tucker: And I think that's niche programing, which has its place.

Absolutely.

Not publicly funded for someone like me.

When I watch New Mexico in Focus it feels like required viewing for a course at UNM, I just don't.

>> Inez: You're educating people how awesome.

>> Trip: that's that's part of the mission of, Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

And I mean, when you say that, I do want to say that my background in journalism, I mean, it started in the 80s, and I worked at several newspapers and my first newspaper, this is just by way of example, covered the white community extraordinarily a lot of nuance, black community, just crime.

And so I mean, there is there is as far as diversified, you know, programing and stuff.

I mean, this is something that that we have been dealing with, as a nation for many, many years.

So, I mean, that's >> Tucker: Sure but if you want to get into deep into environmental reporting or, or environmental justice reporting on things like that, that's fine.

People can do what they want to do.

But does that merit public funding?

>> Inez: Well, I think the idea to me is that some of these stories wouldn't be covered otherwise.

And why shouldn't we?

You know, we fund lots of things through the through taxpayer dollars.

And I think I'll- >> Tucker: and ill get back to my very high bar Of complete political balence.

>> Trip: So let me say this.

We're about to end the session.

We'll have a second session.

But Jeff, what would you need to see?

From, you know, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR, PBS, for, you know, to support some kind of reinstatement of, >> Tucker: well, I think New Mexico PBS, I mentioned this in my column next week, and, they had, State Senator Jim Townsend on last week who would argue that he's the best Republican to have on his show.

Because he's getting up there and he's, you know, not necessarily a back and forth wonky guy, but I think that's a step in the right direction.

Exactly.

John Block, bring on Rebecca Doll or Nicole Tobias and or Mark Moores or others.

So I think that's what my answer would be.

Let's have half conservative guests and half liberal guests >> Trip: Mark Moores was just on the show a few weeks ago and said, >> Inez: and in the old format, which is the roundtable did have a right, you know, did have a right left balance always.

>> Trip: Listen, I want to thank both of you for, talking about this important subject.

We'll return in a few minutes.

We'll.

And.

Yeah, we'll, we'll we'll have another we'll have a debate about public good, you know, and distribution of public goods.

All right.

Thank you.

>>Nash: We'll bring you more of the conversation about federal funding for public broadcasting in just about 15 minutes.

But first, we take you to the Trinity site in southern New Mexico, the location of the world's first nuclear explosion after 80 years.

A sign now stands at that site that acknowledges the human toll of the bomb and the generational suffering of New Mexicans who lived downwind of the fallout.

The state, along with the Tularosa Basin Downwinders consortium, marked the 80th anniversary last week by unveiling the sign and reflecting on what it means.

>>Everyone: On three, one two three.

We won.

And we've just begun.

>>Tina: Well, first of all.

I am tremendously overwhelmed.

We don't always have days like this as advocates, but today we do.

And I'm ever grateful.

And I want to welcome every one of you here.

>>Jay: This is 80 years today.

And, you know, really there's very few events that you can say radically changed history.

This is one of them 80 years ago.

>>Tina: many times when we come together like this, we come together in sorrow around someone's hospital bed or to comfort a family during a funeral.

And we've cried, I remember Gloria Herrera saying this, oceans of tears.

But today we come together in joy, in gladness.

To reflect upon all that we've lost since they detonated that bomb here 80 years ago, when they chose not to evacuate us, not to warn us not to do anything, to take care of our health.

We've been paying the price ever since and now we will have a permanent marker that recognizes the price that we paid.

>>Melissa: This new sign recognizes that 80 years ago, on this very morning, in this sacred place, the US government, before it dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed its own people, its own soil.

The world's very first victims of nuclear weapons were American >>Mary: Many members of my family, many members of Bernice's family, all of our families have suffered these harrowing cancers.

They are real.

They are painful.

No one wants this.

So we must keep fighting.

>>Melissa: The Downwinders, uranium workers and communities exposed to nuclear waste have faced generations of cancers, illnesses and government silence.

Yours are the stories that did not feature in the film Oppenheimer.

>>Tina: Someday my great great grandchildren will drive by and see the sign and stop, maybe, and read the history of the people of New Mexico that heretofore has not been told.

And maybe one of them, just maybe one of them will say, I think my great grandmother had something to do with that.

[Applauding] >>Nash: Thanks to NMiF's Cailley Chella and Lou DiVizio for taking us to the Trinity site for that event.

Also in attendance that day was Santa Fe Archbishop John C Wester, who, along with other religious leaders entered the site, usually closed off to the public to pray for peace and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Archbishop Wester later stopped by our studio to share his thoughts on New Mexico Downwinders finally getting access to compensation and how he sees the federal government still falling short.

He spoke with correspondent Russell Contreras.

>> Russell: Archbishop John Wester, thank you for joining us here on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Wester: It's an honor to be with you, Russell.

Thanks for having me.

>> Russell: Just recently, Congress passed an extension of RECA.

This is the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and it finally included New Mexican families.

After all these years, those affected by the Trinity test for generations.

First of all, what's your big picture reaction to this news?

>> Wester: Well, I'm delighted, of course.

It's about time.

I'm grateful that this happened.

I know Tina Cordova has been working very hard, and all those supporting her, and the Tularosa Downwinders Consortium.

So, this is good news that we've been excluded for so long, and it's time that they be recognized.

The harm and the damage that's been done to them.

And as people know, and Tina's family, for example, they're five generations of people with cancer.

She just found out a year or so ago, that her a niece has cancer.

So, this is really a reality.

It's a tragedy, and I'm glad the government is acknowledging it and doing something about it.

>> Russell: At the same time, the law is coming.

At the time we're cutting, Medicare and -- excuse me, Medicaid.

Where are we falling short with some of these families?

>> Wester: Yeah, well, we're falling short in realizing that the needs that people have.

I think there's there's a tendency to stereotype people, it seems to me, and not to recognize the real dilemma that people are in.

We have so many of our citizens who are working very hard, and they're trying their very best but they can't make ends meet, and they have needs and medical needs.

And so we need the government to be there for them, whether it be RECA, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, all these different agencies that help people.

True.

Not for profits do it.

Churches do it.

There are many other agencies -- but it's so huge.

This is something where the government needs to step in.

And so we have to have that sense of of humanity and decency to help people.

The reality is that because of these cuts, people will die.

People are going to use the E.R.

as their HMO, and that's not right.

>> Russell: Dig into this question, What's the moral reason for the federal government to provide medical care compensations for these families?

>> Wester: I think the moral reason, is that from our point of view, from a Catholic Church's point of view, that we're all children of God, that we have to care for one another.

And I think, too, even if you're not in a particular faith that we're members of the same country, we belong together in this, the United States of America.

Our ancestors, our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents fought in World Wars.

They fought and they -- the freedoms -- the gifts that we enjoy today are because of the contribution of our families, of the people of this country.

And, so, really, the in my view, the government -- the United States owes people today.

It's not a -- you can't, ignore them.

It's not as if they don't exist.

And, so, I really think that the government has an obligation to do this, to care, to to reach out and to help.

And, and frankly, it helps the government because that makes more productive citizens.

They can give back to the country.

And, so, it's a win-win all the way around.

>> Russell: This is the 80th anniversary of the Trinity Test, but also the 80th anniversary of the Atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What should we be doing?

And reflecting on this moment at this time?

>> Wester: Well, this is a significant anniversary.

As some may know, a bunch of us went down to the Trinity Test site last Wednesday, July 16th, and we had a prayer service there at the very epicenter, the very site where the bomb was detonated.

And and then we were down to the Tularosa Basin and had the Mass and, but I think it's important because it causes us to reflect any time we have an anniversary, a birthday, it causes us to step back and reflect.

I remember someone said to me, they're there -- They were talking about how the scientists at the time, the theoretical physicists, were concerned about a chain reaction that they didn't really know -- was a small chance, but it was still a possibility that this could detonate an entire chain reaction in the entire world.

Our Earth would be blown up.

And they said, well, thank goodness there wasn't a chain reaction.

And I said to the person, I said, but there was a chain reaction.

That was the first.

But the point is, there was a chain reaction and that chain reaction now is worse than ever, because now we're in a brand new Arms Race, which is more dangerous than the first because of Artificial Intelligence, because of hypersonic delivery systems, and because of the terrible stress we see in the in the world today.

It's just it's very unnerving to see what's going on in Ukraine.

We just had to -- between Pakistan and India, a confrontation that could have -- got accelerated, but it didn't.

But -- so there's there's a lot going on today that we need to be conscious of.

And I think that this anniversary is a time for us to really reflect good, long and hard over what it means to have these nuclear weapons on Trigger Alert.

>> Russell: Now, the Catholic Church has been very vocal in its opposition of nuclear proliferation, and you've criticized plans to ramp up Plutonium Pit Production at Los Alamos National Lab.

What would you like to see some of -- that some of our state lawmakers and state officials be doing on this?

>> Wester: Well, I want to make it clear, because in Pastoral Letter Living in the Light of Christ's Peace: A Conversation Towards Nuclear Disarmament talks about, LANL and Sandia, I'm from California, originally, the Lawrence Livermore Labs are there.

I want to make it clear, I'm not speaking against the labs.

Many of our people work there.

They're good people, dedicated people.

I know that, and I support the labs and their good work that's not related to building a nuclear bombs.

And we have a need for the labs, we'll always have a need for those labs.

But the problem is we have to look at the larger picture, and that is that building new nuclear weapons is not prudent.

It's not wise, it's not safe.

For one thing, we do not need new pit cores right now.

The research is clear that the weapons we have now are, if I may say, sufficient, they're they're ready to go if needed.

Heaven forbid.

So, we do not -- and so the pit production being done at LANL now is for brand new weapons.

And that means that they'd have to be tested.

What do we do then?

Do we start atmospheric testing and break the treaties -- the few treaties that we have left?

So, it's a real problem, it seems to me.

And so the money is being spent and the trillions of dollars over a period of time could be better spent here in New Mexico for education, for cancer research, for all kinds of good things.

And so -- what it is really, it's this continual building of more and more weapons, building up the weapons until one day our luck's going to run out and we're going to find ourselves in a nuclear conflagration, and that'll be the end of it.

>> Russell: Of course, some nuclear energy and military advocates would say, look, New Mexicans we have to eat and not a lot of economic opportunity here.

And this is a, a chance for us to make some money to earn a living.

And it's part of the industry.

What do you say to that?

>> Wester: I understand that, and I think that's true.

I mean, people have a right to make a living and that's all well and good.

I agree with that.

And but, again, I would rather see the labs converted to peaceful use, medical use, etc.

that's one thing.

Another point to make -- to make on that point, though, is that the money, it's good for the people working the labs for the few that work there.

But what about the rest of New Mexico?

It's good for Los Alamos.

And people, I think, have the idea that trickles down to the rest of New Mexico.

It doesn't.

It doesn't trickle down at all.

You can look at the statistics.

And as a matter of fact, you could make a case that it puts pressure on Espanola, for example, for the people cannot afford to live in Los Alamos, to live in Espanola, and that's they have to be provided by that county.

So, I think that, the billions of dollars go into LANL, it's larger really, than the entire budget for the state of New Mexico.

>> Russell: There's a war in Ukraine.

The conflict in Gaza seems like it's endless right now.

How should we be keeping hope at this moment with all this also nuclear proliferation going on here?

How should we look at hope?

>> Wester: Well, that's a very good question.

As it turns out, in our Catholic Church, Pope Francis' happy memory began this -- of Jubilee Year.

And he made it a Year of Hope.

And so, as Christians and all of our major religions would -- and all of us are called to be hopeful, to be optimistic, we have to be.

And we have good reason to be.

But you're right.

There are things going on in the world today, and our country and our state that they caused us great alarm, but we have to -- I think that's why we have to recognize the power of each individual.

I think sometimes people feel, “Well, what can I do?” “I can't stop Netanyahu from bombing Gaza.” and, “I can't stop Putin from bombing Ukraine.,” and, “I can't stop this or that.

But I think we have to realize that as we say in one of our hymns, Peace Begins With Me.

We have to all of us feel -- realize we have a role.

And we have to realize -- be confident in our voice when people come together.

And you mentioned Tina Cordova.

Look what happens when people raise their voices.

You know, our elected leaders listen I was talking to Nancy Pelosi years ago, I was working on immigration for the bishops conference, and we were asking her to support the bishops stand on immigrants.

And she said, “Well, you better talk to your constituents because we politicians, we want to see where the votes are, if the votes aren't there, you know, it's going to weaken your position.” So, that's why the voices have -- I think sometimes, “Why should I bother writing my congressperson?” Or, “Why should I try?” It makes a difference.

People listen and all those voices come together.

I think that's a reason for hope.

If we have hope, then we'll engage that and we'll really talk to our elected officials.

So, I think there is reason for hope.

And I think that that we do see that, our elected officials do listen, that they care.

And I think that that's something that we have to have, you know, confidence.

And if we see that's not true, then we need to vote them out and vote somebody else in that does have that compassion.

>> Russell: Archbishop Wester, thank you so much for joining me on New Mexico in Focus.

>> Wester: You're most welcome, Russell.

Thanks for having me.

>> Russell: Thank you.

>>Nash: Thanks to the Archbishop and Russell Contreras for bringing us that conversation.

We finish out this week's show by returning to the table where opinion contributor for the Albuquerque Journal, Jeff Tucker, and Inez Russell Gomez, opinion page editor for the Santa Fe New Mexican, lay out their cases for whether taxpayers should continue to help fund public media stations like ours.

>> Trip: Welcome back.

Thank you for joining us.

We had our first segment.

It's like I said, a very important subject.

We have a lot to talk about.

The thing that interests me is that that, you know, information in a democracy is really important.

You need better information as journalism always been perfect in that.

No, not even close, because we're human beings, but journalism.

And that information is circulating, flowing through the nation seems to be a public good.

And I'm wondering how thinking of, you know, journalism as a public good, how how do you think about, you know, this funding here?

I mean, this is a this is I think many people would agree that this is a public good.

>> Inez: Well, to me, when you remove news from the diets of Americans, whether it's at the national level where we're all listening, you know, a bunch of us to NPR in the morning, kind of getting a common experience, which is very rare in the segmented audience we have today.

Or whether you're talking about a station I heard of in Alaska, I think it was in Petersburg where they broadcast the school board meetings live so that people can hear if they can't go.

When you remove that sort of information, we know less, and as a result, the decisions we make are less informed.

So if we are going to have a democratic republic, you know, operated by citizens who know what they're doing, we have to have factual, agreed upon information and work from the same page to some degree.

And when you lose news sources, you lose that.

>> Trip: I mean, Jeff, I want to I want you obviously to respond, but I think we you know, we need to look at the historical context, which is a misinformation and disinformation is at an all time high.

It seems like, at least in my lifetime, and we have AI coming, which is going to be >> Tucker: who's going to be the arbitrator of that?

New Mexico PBS?

>> Inez : Reporters!

>> Trip: but I mean but Inez hs a point, actually, there are like, there are a lot of little stations and communities that provide public services.

And I think journalism is a public service, in that sense.

>> Tucker: Sure, and again, I'm all for media.

I'm all for all types of media from all across the political spectrum.

But I keep asking the same question.

Most taxpayers fund it if they don't support it.

>> Trip: Well, I mean taxpayers Do support it right, don't they?

>> Inez: According to the >> Tucker: I think the reason.

>> Inez: Yeah.

>> Tucker: NPR and PBS have lost their funding as a lack of public support, not because public support is growing.

>> Inez: The recent poll that they this is a Harris online poll and it was like 60 some odd percent of people actually do support it.

The people who don't support it, are leaders who don't like the stories that are done about them because of being held to account.

>> Tucker: 60%, is a lot of people paying that don't.

>> Inez: I don't support bombs and I have to pay for them That's part of being that you lose some battles and you pay for it.

And you know, >> Jeff: if I want to read the Santa Fe, New Mexico I subscribe to and I'm not required to pay into it.

Or >> Inez: but I am required to pay for bombs.

>> Trip: So I mean, part of this is that, you know, we are a Western liberal democracy that has been, basically, I mean it for me.

It does come back to that >> Tucker: State run media is the antithesis of democracy.

>> Trip: But, I mean >> Inez: it's not a state run, It's a state funded media.

There's a difference.

a state run media is one in which the media does what the boss tells them.

>> Tucker: If you're giving up the money, you've got a lot of influence, though >> Inez: I don't see any influence, because if that were true, then PBS would have become immediately conservative in January because the conservatives took over.

>> Tucker: I think you're going to see PBS and NPR moved in the middle.

>> Trip: I mean, are, in some senses by cutting off funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, isn't that more of a move toward state run media then then having this robust conversation.

>> Tucker: eliminating, taxpayer funded, a media outlet is is, how do you say it?

>> Trip: what I'm saying is basically, Congress and President Trump have made a decision that they don't like what's happening at the national level, >> Tucker: not just Congress, their constituents.

>> Trip: Many, but it's I think there is a question about, like in journalism, I would say most means a majority of people, many means less than a majority.

I think that you probably have a lot of people who do support this.

The majority of folks, if you've >> Tucker: if you've only got 60% of the public who supports your station, I think there's room for growth there.

>> Inez: You know, I want to go back to the whole idea of the defunding, and this is way in the weeds.

But part of the the way the system is supposed to work is you pass things with the majority, the president signs it, and then you kind of know where you're going.

You get your blueprint for how you're going to travel.

Well, a few months ago, they passed a budget.

They signed it.

It was in place.

Then all of a sudden it's like we're going to have a recision, which hadn't been done in a quarter of a century.

They go back, they take back the money.

And that means that if you're a Democratic senator, representative and you're asked to vote bipartisan for a budget, all of a sudden you don't know if what you voted for is going to stand because of the rescission.

The taking back doesn't need that majority.

>> Tucker: One congress can never impede >> Inez: was the same, but it was the same congress.

>> Tucker: over the next month.

>> Trip: Can I ask if we can always change their mind?

This is to Inez and you may want to weigh in afterwards.

But I mean, I mean, Jeff is saying that there should be more voices, certain voices in this.

And, you know, having lived around the country, sometimes I chafe at the conservative liberal because it's too broad.

I know so many types of conservatives, so many types of liberals, and a lot of people are a la carte.

I mean, there are a lot of people who feel like they are forgotten in this economy, So, I mean, I think where this this is part of what you're maybe this is where a lot of this is coming from.

There are a lot of people who feel forgotten.

Should there be any more conservative voices, more voices that are maybe different at whatever, PBS, NPR, local stations?

>> Inez: Well, I think that's actually the problem with this cut is that it's getting rid of the different voices which happen at the rural stations and little towns all over the country, because I can bet you that a station in Portales is not going to be, you know, a really blue, blue kind of reporting.

So in an attempt to go after what perceived as liberal bias at the elite stations or at the elite level, they've really hurt their voters in terms of Red Trump voters.

And I think that's unfortunate.

And I think we have to stop looking at it as red and blue.

And maybe it's rural and urban as much, you know, maybe they need more of a ranching perspective if they're talking about the environment or, you know, people who live next to oil rigs and talk to the worker who is getting a great job, as opposed to just the person who's breathing the pollution, you know, so spread it out.

Right.

>> Tucker: I think, that's one of the problems with New Mexico PBS is if there's any coverage of the oil industry, it's usually negative.

It's about frontline communities suffering, from >> Inez: not being able to breathe >> Tucker: Environmental justice Yeah.

>> Trip: you know what since you mentioned NMPBS, I mean, what what kind of story would you like to see on this show?

Both to both of you.

>> Tucker: I think you do a good job in certain areas, like I tune in all the time, but before elections, you have Dede Feldman on, and you do a kind of a preview of the candidates, and, so there's definitely, public service to be to be done there.

I would just like to see overall, just more voices I write in my column to be so kind of read on Sunday that, I'd like to see a discussion on transgender issues here on New Mexico PBS.

I think that would be informative.

I think if you did that, you'd get a revolt from your donors, though, who would say, what are you doing?

Platforming Riley Gaines and the Independent Women's Forum.

And I think that gets to the school of false equivalency in journalism is that he don't give one side, balance.

And even before that, you don't even pursue the story because it's just so dang controversial.

>> Trip: I do remember in your column you mentioned a, trans hairstylist who appeared on Sesame Street.

I looked did you see that segment?

Yeah, I looked for the segment.

I didn't see it on Sesame Street.

I saw it on the Not Too Late Show with Elmo, which is HBO Max programing.

Is that what you're talking about?

>> Tucker: I've had to go back and look at the clip, but, I thought it was, the June 1st episode of Sesame Street, which coincided with the start of Pride Month >> Trip: and part of the reason I asked this about, well, I mean, let me ask you the same question to ask Jeff.

I mean, is there programing that you'd like to see or, >> Inez: I, you know, I think they do a good job on the issues that they focused on, you know, environmental, you know, they do really great water stories, indigenous issues.

I always think that when you can go out to the boonies in New Mexico and do stories like, you know, whether it's from Mora or Dulce or any of the little towns all over the state.

So more field reporting.

I like that because those people do feel overlooked.

I know that from having family that lived out in those places for years.

>> Tucker: And who else is going to go out and cover the, dairy ranching in Dexter?

>> Trip: I mean, you know, I want to say this there is going to be field reporting from, Riodoso on this show from NMPBS, they have someone down there.

So so that meets that perspective.

The reason I'm asking some of these questions is, is and I think this is really important, and I hope that people are, talking about this, all over the country, which is a democracy, is a multiple constituency kind of game.

And it gets really complicated.

And people disagree.

I would hope that we can talk about this agreeably as a nation.

I think that that probably, we're going to have to all modulate ourselves.

But I, I anyway, that's the only reason I'm asking these questions about how things are handled.

And the conversations.

>> Tucker: Sure and the funding don't even take effect till October.

So we have some time.

And I think this is a pivotal moment of a reset.

And we're going to see which way, public broadcasting goes.

And I hope that it goes to the middle.

And I hope that we keep it, because I've always been a big fan of it.

>> Inez: I just want to mention KSFR out of Santa Fe and out of the community college, just because it's just a great local station, publicly funded by, you know, donors, and it's going to lose a chunk of money if this continues and we get, you know, world programing through that.

So we get a perspective outside of the United States.

We get really great music.

And those are the kinds of things that if you're a kid listening to it, it opens up your world.

And that's what I hope that we somehow can maintain if there's a way to do it.

In this current environment.

>> Trip: I mean, I will say, you know, growing up, I was a little too old for Sesame Street.

But but, some of the programing that has come across, at so to that point, I mean, as human beings, we kind of construct our worldview through the information that comes to us for family and friends and then more institutional sources.

It seems to me that having a diversity of this is my thesis, a diversity of, of like sources of information.

Like every day I read, you know, ten sources, that, that PBS and NPR might fit in that.

I mean, would you guys agree?

I mean, is that something that you would agree?

>> Tucker: Sure.

There's a definitely a place for a PBS.

The question is, should it be publicly funded?

Is it so much different than ABC, CBS and NBC?

And does it do so many different things that it actually merits public funding?

And people on my side of the aisle just don't believe that it does.

I hope that it improves.

>> Trip: I mean, my sense of Congress is that there were some folks who voted for this who didn't want it.

Yeah.

I mean, on your on the back, >> Tucker: this is something that's been talked about in conservative circles for 30 years.

>> Trip: Yeah, yeah, a long time.

>> Tucker: And then finally been to do it.

Like I said, it doesn't take take effect to October.

We have some time to, kind of, see how this is going to play out and maybe to make, you know, at the state level, some fixes.

If our state lawmakers so agree that, hey, New Mexico PBS is such an important job for the community, we should have, 5.500 thousand.

>> Inez: Five fifty or so?

But that's not that much.

>> Trip: That's for KUNM.

And then, and then NMPBS is 1.7 million each year for two years.

Yeah.

So we are at the end of our time for this segment.

We made it through.

We had an agreeable conversation.

I want to I think this is I think I hope that this happens across the nation.

Listen, thank you both for coming on and and talking about this important subject.

Thank you.

Trip, thank you.

My first time on New Mexico in Focus.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks.

>>Nash: Thank you to Inez Russell Gomez and Jeff Tucker for sharing their opinions and to correspondents Trip Jennings and Gwyneth Doland for producing that segment without editorial input from our team.

Join us here next week when we'll check in on how federal shifts in immigration policy and border enforcement are showing up here in New Mexico for New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones until next week, Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.