Our View: Why we need public broadcasting

Sun, 02/20/2011 - 12:01am

Do we need the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and should the federal government continue to fund it?

The House of Representatives voted Friday to completely cut all funding for CPB. If similar legislation would pass in the Senate, it would effectively remove support for public radio and TV stations across the U.S.

You must be a premium member to read the rest of this story. To become a member, please click here.

If you find a correction for this story, please contact our editorial department

Related Terms:

davidmmorgan on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:45am

Title: Public Access Channels - why not in SV?

We don’t have public access channels in Sierra Vista because your city council and city administration don’t want them. It’s not a matter of money, market viability or technical constraints. Your local govt wants to control what you know about local govt operations and limit public debate. A couple years ago monopoly service provider Cox Cable was given a 12-year extension of the franchise agreement (at about $250,000/yr) with the City of Sierra Vista. It included two channels that the city is free to use how they wish (non-commercially). The city (ask your council member) decided they would be "government channels" not public access channels. And do they use them? HARDLY. Can you or I use them for half an hour? NO. In the 12,000+ communities in the U.S. with cable TV companies guess how many DON’T have PUBLIC access channels?

brian

on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 8:05am

Title: Oh, cry me a river. The

Oh, cry me a river. The broadcast will still be available for local access, and you failed to mention how much money the Dept of Ed particularly, and other Executive Branch Depts, funnels toward the "quality programming" PBS puts out. They’ll find a way to keep Sesame Street and Sid the Science Kid on the air.

Hereford Steve on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 12:25pm

Title: Different times

Back when "cable tv" was only 13 channels there may have been a need for a public channel to show educational programs. We now have the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, Smithsonian, etc, etc that show educational documentaries all day. Why should taxpayers fund a channel that if "it is such a great idea" would be financially and commercially viable. Why should the taxpayers support television that does have commercially viable programming? The same with NPR and commercial radio. If people want to listen to long, drawn out, biased reporting sprinkled with monotonous musical breaks than they will either support it through donations or supporting advertisers. Keep government out of it.

Cassandra on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:32am

Title: Your position is not

Your position is not unreasonable. I shared it with you some years ago. However, the causes of market viability and returns to shareholders inevitably supplant the missions of objectivity and veracity. That’s why kids who watch the History Channel are learn that UFO’s are real, the world has a better than even chance of ending in 2012 and wealthy Romans had ivory sex toys.

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 demands "objectivity and balance" in the programming. This objectivity is ostensibly overseen by a board, which is composed of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The current president of the CPB used to be co-chair of the RNC. Is it flawlessly objective? That’s not possible. However, I think that a person watching NewsHour, which features objective reporting, without shouting or salacious voyeurism by life-size barbie dolls, may experience that very objectivity as a bias, when he or she h

Cassandra on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 9:36pm

Title: character counter doesn't work

I was planning to go on to say that a person may experience that objectivity as a bias when he or she has become accustomed to a particular "flavor" to his or her news. Olbermaniacs think PBS is a right wing sleeper cell and Becknuts think PBS specializes in Trotskyite agitprop.

Back before the deregulation frenzy of the ’80s, the FCC enforced certain requirements for balance and equal time, as well as proscriptions against marketing directly to children. Under those regulations, we wouldn’t be subjected to single agenda networks like MSNBC or FOX and our children wouldn’t be subjected to entertainment designed specifically to sell action figures and dress up dolls.

Hereford Steve on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 8:14pm

Title: OK, I will grant you the UFO

OK, I will grant you the UFO shows are a bit of a stretch but please don’t shatter my new-found interest in Roman history! My one point is that we have taxpayer supported television that features commercially successful programming. This includes Sesame Street, This Old House, and Barney on PBS. All of these shows could easily support themselves on commercial television. (God only knows how much I have spent on stuffed purple dinosaurs, Big Bird, and even the occasional issue of "This Old House" magazine.) So why are they at the public trough?

Ran Talbott on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:24am

Title: “My one point is that we have

“My one point is that we have taxpayer supported television that features
commercially successful programming”

However, it also features a lot more programming that is not (and, often,
couldn’t be) commercially successful.

Commercial stations and networks eist to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, and
are under pressure to deliver the maximum number at _all_ times.

Public stations need only appeal to enough people, overall, to bring in the
donations. If they don’t beat the competition for audience share in a given
timeslot, there’s no panic. That gives them the freedom to take more chances
on shows that might not work out, and to broadcast shows with “small, but
loyal” audiences.

The TV stations and networks used to treat their news departments as a
“public service”, to be subsidized by other shows. I believe one of the
reasons TV news is so awful now is that they dropped that philosophy, and
made news a “product” that has to entertain for profits.

Cassandra on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:06pm

Title: I hear you

Again, that’s a very reasonable argument, which I can’t directly counter. I believe we are right on the cusp of PBS’ obsolescence. However, I don’t believe we are there yet. To make my case I can only appeal to your subtler powers of observation. You can see the difference between a CNN or NBC investigative report and an episode of Frontline. The even handed and careful discourse of Jim Lehrer’s NewsHour wouldn’t survive the vicissitudes of the market place ( almost, I think, but not quite). I watched Network a few nights ago on TCM (another programming outlet that almost defies logic by surviving, but it does, which gives credence to your position) and, having not seen it in over 20 years, I was astonished by the prescience of the film.

Finally, compare the kids programming on PBS with comparable programming on Disney or Nick. Some of it is quite good but the focus is on entertainment and much less on pedagogy. PBS’ days are numbered, but not yet.

Ran Talbott on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:07pm

Title: “We now have the History

“We now have the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, Smithsonian, etc, etc that show
educational documentaries all day”

Yup. And, if you want to watch them, it’ll cost you about $500 per year.

Assuming you’re allowed to buy them: the Republicans introduced legislation
in Phoenix last year that would have made it a _crime_ for anyone receiving
any sort of public benefits to do so.

“Why should the taxpayers support television that does have commercially
viable programming?”

Even if we assume that your premise is valid (and I don’t, because it’s
grossly over-simplified), there’s always the Iraq War:

http://www.docbug.com/blog/archives/000047.html

If more people got their news from NPR and PBS, we could have save tens of
thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars.

That would make CPB one of the best investments in human history.