Before we help “Bail Out” PBS, Public Interest Must Be Guaranteed: No Long-term Funding without Serious Commitment and Change

Groups such as and others have rightly responded to the proposed Bush Administration budget slash to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (around a 25% reduction to CPB’s funding for public television and radio). There is now a campaign to help restore funding and also politically pave the way for some form of permanent support—such as a “Trust Fund.”

While reversing the cuts is necessary, it is too early to support any permanent funding plan. More money won’t cure PBS’s problems. It will just enable the network to display higher-priced collectibles on Antiques Roadshow. The system needs to be restructured so the public interest is better guaranteed via a truly non-commercial approach. We also must think beyond today’s PBS and NPR to ensure there will be funding to support a much more expansive and diverse non-commercial digital environment. But to begin with PBS. Its annual budget should be required to have mandatory requirements for programming. For example, PBS—and its stations—should be mandated to reserve around 30% of annual revenues to pay for news and public affairs programming. Investigative news programming produced locally and nationally would be part of this commitment. A significant amount of funding would need to go for cultural programming. All children’s programming must be fully non-commercial: no underwriters, brand-tie-ins and even toy deals (that would be needed for news as well). Like news, the PBS “kidvid” block would receive a guarantee percentage of the Trust Fund revenues. PBS would be required to underwrite programming which reflect the needs of a diverse and under-served audience. It would have to ensure independent producers, especially women and producers of color, create at least half of all its annual programming. A review process would be created via an independent committee that would report annually to the public how well PBS was fulfilling its Trust Fund obligations. PBS and its stations would also be required to develop governance reforms which would help put the “public” back into public broadcasting. There could be similar approaches to NPR (This blogger has worked on PBS issues for many years, so my expertise is with the TV side versus public radio).

Finally, an independent body would be set up which would provide grants directly to producers and others who produce non-commercial content across various platforms. Such funding would grow in time as the need for stations recedes due to the digital transformation. (A Trust Fund would have to alter its funding strategies to reflect current and impending changes in media use). CPB would be replaced, of course. I don’t believe Congress will “free” public broadcasting soon. But as we begin the conversation about its future, much more serious deliberation is needed. We shouldn’t help save “Big Bird” if all the public is going to get is more of the same of what we have today. That’s why advocates need to clearly offer a serious restructuring that will better guarantee the country has a set of diverse non-commercial digital services it deserves.

american accreditation commission healthcareaccreditation continuing medical education councilrepair credit aceuniversity accredited listphoenix university accepts from credits ofacredited engineer school online foraccredited bachelor life degrees experienceaccreditation forum discussion Map

movies free dildo sexcdgirls moviesample free sex moviesfree movies pisslesbian movies longmovies lesbian lovemovies sapphic sweet lickingmale gay movies porn Map

1 thought on “Before we help “Bail Out” PBS, Public Interest Must Be Guaranteed: No Long-term Funding without Serious Commitment and Change”

  1. Jeff: Regarding public broadcasting (PB): Having known of your work for many years, I know you as a nominal supporter of the federal share
    (12+%) public broadcasting funding as long as your interests receive some of it.
    That said, I also have noticed that you are more a critic of PB than a supporter of a secured appropriations that would allow the kind of program operations that you say you support.
    The discussion you want to have at the regularly scheduled inopportune time of appropriations is a non-starter because no one can deal with your issues in the midst of battle.
    Larry Grossman and Newt Minow have a plan for what you support but that is where your efforts should be. It is supported by APTS I believe but everyone knows it is a very long shot. And it is a long shot in part because of folks like you using times of high visibility for PB to take your critical shots at it rather than a long term commitment to working on achieving the ideal that you and most others would love to have, i.e., a securely funded trust that would free PB to do the kind of programming envisioned by the original Carnegie Commission.
    The problem with that dream is that it is unrealistic and way too idealistic for Congress. Lobbying the Hill for 13+ years, I learned the lessons of what is possible as well as what is hurtful.
    Taking shots contributed nothing to progress. An occasional editorial simply ignores the long hard slog necessary to achieve a Trust fund for PB that would allow the elimination of other sources of revenue that make so much of the good programming possible.
    There is no shortage of conversations, seminars, meetings and conferences over the last 40 years that have taken on your issue with public broadcasting. Where is your action plan to follow on to those thoughts. That’s where the hard work comes in.
    In addition, you must recognize the totality of what PB delivers to its many publics, not only the one channel of analog broadcast. There is much more that PB does on many channels and through many media including community outreach. That quantity of service far outpaces the single broadcast channel.
    There is a hugh forest of PB all around you. Don’t let the trees of your special interests interfere with your view of that forest.

Leave a Reply