Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

A Fan's Case for Ending Federal Support to Public Radio and Public TV

2 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
At $430 million, public broadcasting is a tiny part of the $3.8 trillion federal budget. Still, it's time to end its role as a political football and a symbol of what government shouldn't be doing. It's time to find another way to help public broadcasting thrive.

I say that as a huge fan. No one could love PBS and NPR more than I do. I'm a monthly contributor to local stations in my area and just last weekend I bought NPR's map pinpointing affiliated stations all over the country. My husband and I have "driveway moments" all the time, unable to leave the car until a story ends. One of them early this month was about the Egyptian military's vast array of business ventures, and how that was shaping its role in the protests (stability was a priority, as was not firing on potential customers). Our year already has been enlivened by "Downton Abbey" and other PBS programming.

You can't find these types of offerings just anywhere, which is why it is vital that public broadcasting survive and flourish. But we cannot ignore our debt-ridden fiscal times, or the intense ongoing debate about what government should do and what it can afford to do.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels last weekend laid out a vision for "limited but active" government. He is a conservative Republican and I'm sure I'd disagree with him over what falls within those limits. Still, it's clear to me that public broadcasting is not in a league with national security, a healthy economy, safe food, drugs, air, water and products (be they cars or mortgages), and a social safety net for the sick, the poor and the elderly (the better to "promote the general welfare," as the Constitution puts it).

The left and right are currently at loggerheads over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which gives most of its money to 368 television stations and 934 radio stations, and spends the rest on programming such as "The NewsHour" and "Antiques Roadshow." Led by Sen. Jim DeMint, the Republican Study Group and other conservatives, Republicans in Congress are on a crusade to strike CPB from the federal budget. Stations are making impassioned pleas to members to protest the GOP plan. MoveOn.org, meanwhile, has mounted a petition drive to save CPB.

The public broadcasting audience is more of a mix than you might think, given the political passions raging in Washington. The most recent demographic information on NPR came in a Pew study last September. It found that 45 percent of listeners considered themselves moderates, 29 percent liberals and 22 percent conservatives. NPR has about 36 million listeners a month overall, so that means it has nearly 8 million conservative listeners. Presumably they don't want to see NPR vanish.

When public broadcasting was established in the 1960s, it was designed as an alternative to a TV industry under the influence of its advertisers, says David Schutz, a veteran broadcast industry financial and marketing analyst. "Content was heavily controlled by sponsors" back then, he told me. Multi-year funding was supposed to insulate CPB from shifting political winds.

But politics is front and center these days, especially since the abrupt firing of NPR analyst Juan Williams last fall. He had remarked on the conservative Fox News Channel that while on planes people in "Muslim garb" made him nervous. He later cautioned against lumping all Muslims together, noting that "you don't say . . . we got a problem with Christians" because Timothy McVeigh planted a bomb in Oklahoma City. But the damage was done.

It's never been clear if Williams was fired for what he said (politically incorrect) or where he said it (on Fox). Either way, the incident triggered a major controversy, the departure of a top NPR executive and the latest drive to defund public broadcasting.

The most measured approach would be to put CPB on a five- to 10-year phase-out plan, gradually reducing its budget as other means of financing are developed. Here are some ways to bring more money into the pot.

- Advertising. Schutz says federal authorities have been easing up on what constitutes a sponsorship. Fifteen years ago there were "momentary mentions" of institutional sponsors such as the Ford Foundation, he said. Now there are 15- to 20-second segments and, particularly on TV with its visual elements, they look just like ads.

That's a slippery slope to some public broadcasting advocates. " 'Sesame Street' could survive on network TV," CPB spokesman Tim Isgitt told me. "But there will be a Sprite in the scene and the kids will be assaulted by Mattel ads every 10 minutes." NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm said NPR would risk losing listeners. "Our audience appreciates not hearing five minutes of back-to-back commercials every break. That would not enhance our value to the audience. It's an important part of our commercial identity," she said.

Purity may not survive in this environment, but there are options that don't involve advertising.

- Sell PBS programming to cable and satellite companies. Schutz said PBS has never attempted to seek what he calls "re-transmission revenue" from subscription television providers. "Maybe it's time for them to re-evaluate that relationship," he said. Measured by the going rates for major commercial networks, he estimated that charging such fees would bring in anywhere from $85 million to $300 million a year for PBS and its affiliates. This model wouldn't work for radio, which is free, but the money could help subsidize NPR if a certain portion went to CPB or a successor organization.

- More listener and viewer contributions. Rehm said 3 million households now donate to NPR stations, an all-time high. But even accounting for multiple people in a household, that leaves millions listening for free. "You can definitely make an argument that there is plenty of room for growth," Rehm said. "On the other hand, it's not as if public radio stations haven't been trying to grow that number." The biggest hurdle for people who don't give is "believing that their contribution will make a difference," she said.

The loss of federal money via CPB might convince non-contributors that even small amounts of money would help their local public TV and radio stations. It likely would result in existing NPR members increasing their contributions, Rehm said. But would that higher level be sustained over time? Unclear.

- Benefactors. When philanthropist Joan Kroc died in 2003, she left about $200 million to NPR. It's now the bulk of an endowment that produces about $10 million a year for NPR's use.

There's a lot written these days about rising income inequality and the concentration of wealth at the top. It's clearly apparent in the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, topped by Bill Gates ($54 billion) and Warren Buffet ($45 billion). Many of these people could kick in $1 billion for a CPB endowment and barely notice. Pretty soon you'd be talking about endowment income about equal to the federal appropriation.

Of course, the CPB might have to be renamed -- maybe the Corporation for Independent Broadcasting or the Corporation for Quality Broadcasting -- if there's no public money involved. And regardless of the source, money for programming and station subsidies has to keep flowing to CPB or a successor. The seed money CPB distributes to radio and TV stations is critical, particularly in rural and poor areas with relatively few potential members and sponsors.

It's possible that over five to 10 years nobody will step up or figure out how to save the national treasure that is public broadcasting. It's also possible that we'll be in a different political moment then, a different economic moment, with money and goodwill to spare. I'd bet against that. But I'd also bet on NPR and PBS to make it in the big world. We are not going to let them die.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter
Filed Under: Analysis

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

215 Comments

Filter by:
hgeorgech

Unlike NPR, PBS does have some merit to continue to exist!

If NPR disappeared at midnight tonight - forever - face it, the planet would be none the wose off ...

That said, PBS, by contrast, has provided some excellent programming for over 4 decades - great kids programs, travel, nature, comedy .. etc., etc .. family entertainment, commercial-free. It has and continues to have a positive contribution and alternative in what is ofen viewed as TV wasteland .........

Does PBS need 350+ TV stations? NO

Should PBS stations be constantly trolling to keep and get new subscribers with their never-ending fund raisers? NO

How many PBS TV stations have gone "belly up" in the past 5 or so years due to lack of funding? Nil to none?

What PBS should be ...

. Keep the 6 - 8 best stations (based upon programming excellence and reputation)

. Make those stations available nationwide/regionally

. Eliminate the other 342 stations .. they're mostly redundant; similar programs, duplication of investment, staffing, etc., etc

Bottom line .. keep the best; scuttle the rest!

Some Federal funding (greatly reduced by eliminating the marginal/also-ran stations) would continue for the 6 - 8 Flagship PBS stations - we all enjoy PBS occasionally or frequently - they really do provide welcome change from the otherwise miserable programming offered on commercial TV/Cable/Dish

March 10 2011 at 2:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
DebraCTurner

PBS should not be soooo very far left! They are so biased & have been always.
Let them get their money from their sponsors.

February 21 2011 at 3:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ialbel

I would guess that many of the posters who would like to see Fox and their headliners silenced are appalled at the thought of paying for PBS as if it were a profitable enterprise. If the PBS programming is so "fair and balanced" and so popular, then let those who enjoy the fare please step up and do pay for it. It is grossly unfair to have the government fund radio broadcasts that compete with private stations. If the shows are so superior and so popular then they can stand on their own and pay the way for more shows. Stop using my money for an arm of the government to compete with business.

February 20 2011 at 4:17 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
slick

Its a drop in the bucket but we have to stop spending!!!!!!

February 18 2011 at 10:04 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
ettu

Can the "it's such a small part of the spending" stop, and the chopping begin? The way to get something done is to take a first step, big or small........

February 17 2011 at 9:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ccs5402

One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact there are many, many public radio stations that are not affiliated with NPR. Further, there are many public stations that only carry NPR's morning and afternoon news programs, Morning Edition and All Things Considered. They might also carry a few non-news shows such as Car Talk but overall they offer some other type of programming. NPR does not share money with public stations it is the other way around and it is very costly to the local station. Many public stations reach rural or urban areas that could never financially support them. Most of these stations are very involved in their communities working with the arts community or other non profits to bring awareness to events or issues in the community. Commercial stations could never/would never do this type of community work...they couldn't afford it. The assertion that public radio stations should raise money like commercial radio stations does not consider the community element of public broadcasting which is mission driven rather than money driven. As an example there are quite a few public stations that offer a reading service for the visually impaired...can you really imagine a commercial station offering this service? Also, the amount of money that a station receives is adjusted according to the audience served. Rural stations get the most CPB dollars whereas stations in Metro areas that could support themselves get little (some may not get any at all but I am not 100% sure about that). CPB dollars might be a drop in the bucket to some stations but not to small rural or urban stations that could never serve their community without that money.

February 17 2011 at 10:22 AM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
relay391

government should not fund any radio or tv. let them get sponsors just like everyone else---no tax funding. period. that includes left or right media.

February 16 2011 at 10:32 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply
ajcook111

Let us find something to cut that doesn't give so much pleasure to so many people for so little government investment. Perhaps those millionaires and billionaires don't need those huge tax cuts after all.

February 16 2011 at 7:08 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply
rmhbiz4u

There is absolutly no reason to spend tax payers money on a Public Broadcast Company. This is another case of over stuffed bureaucracy. This should stand by itself based on is own merits. It is a leftist slant company and should be supported solely by it audiance and not the general public.

February 16 2011 at 11:21 AM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
John Gray

Another dimension to CPB: news. Do we want government to fund coverage of itself? Or as George Will once asked and have never heard answered: How would we feel about a Corp for Public Newspapers?

And, oh, yes, I am a rabid consumer of NPR/PBS. Tonight I heard a PBS podcast report on a proposal to cut PBS. The PBS reporter deserved an Oscar for playing it objective, but still this example points to the inherent problems in this government/media funding relationship. And it's bigger than Juan Williams or adding token conservative commentators to this or that program. The Pravda was mocked not just for this or that silly headline but because it was structurally a government organ. Let's do a favor to NPR/PBS and remove the similar funding arrangement.

February 15 2011 at 11:43 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>