My recent post about the Bay State Banner’s accepting a City of Boston bailout (a certified concept-with-a-capital-K), brought a question from one of Campaign Outsider’s excellent commenters about the federal government-sponsored Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
“[I]f this loan troubles you,” he asked, “why does CPB-funded WBUR [where I’m a media analyst] not trouble you?”
Actually, it troubles me a lot. As does the CPB’s funding of PBS. (Full disclosure: I spent 11 years at Boston PBS station WGBH.)
Government funding of public broadcasting is, if not a cancer, certainly a serious skin lesion. From what I’ve been told, government funding of PBS affiliates averages out at about 15%. The price of that funding, however, is far higher.
Campaign Outsider Flashback™:
Back in the ’70s I worked as a claims adjuster for the Social Security Administration in their SSI division, which provided welfare for the aged, the disabled, and the blind. “Claims adjusting” was a euphemism for cutting benefits.
One day a claimant sat across my desk and complained about the public service – or lack thereof – he was receiving from this public servant.
“Hey – I pay your salary!” he shouted.
“You’re on welfare, you moron,” I replied. “You don’t pay taxes.”
The lyrics might not be the same, but the tune is: If you take any taxpayer money, they think they pay your salary. Which means they’re the boss of you. So you had better toe their line.
During the past few years, government funding has made PBS timid and risk-averse. See Postcards from Buster‘s Excellent Lesbian Adventure (not available on most PBS stations) or Frontline‘s Iraq documentaries (now available in cursing or non-cursing versions).
Admittedly, it would not be a small thing for PBS affiliates to cut their budgets by 15%.
But it would be a smart thing.
Campaign Outsider 
I think that you are conflating some different threads into this story.
As a recipient of general federal funding, PBS avoids editorializing in its news coverage. I suspect WBUR does the same for the same reason, and the fear is that the (Municipal) Bay State Banner would either stop doing so if it receives a loan from the city’s BRA, or that its editorials would be watered-down or biased.
The discussion about newspapers possibly becoming non-profits to stay afloat would likely require them to stop editorializing, but would do nothing to prevent them from engaging in aggressive reporting. A Republican friend of mine once said that he was glad that nobody watched Frontline, because if they did, then there would be incredible heck to pay up to the top levels of government.
Frontline itself is a wonderful example of how general government-funding for public broadcasting can avoid all potential strings attached to that funding.
Your Frontline example had to do with possibly obscene language being broadcast in violation of increased FCC enforcement efforts — which would have been an identical story if it were a show broadcast on PBS or one of the three major broadcast networks — not on its watered-down coverage of the story. You overreach.
The Buster story was also not related to general federal funding for PBS — former Secretary of Education Spelling raised her objections based on the federal funding through a grant for that specific program. Funding agencies and private foundations alike make conditions on how money they award can be used.
I don’t know the breakdown of PBS funding as to general budget line-items vs. grants, but I suspect that if you include the latter category, that PBS relies much more than 15% on some kind of federal funding. If so, it would be much more difficult for PBS to slash their budget just to remove any direct connection to the federal government.
And doing so would put them at an unnecessary disadvantage relative to many for-profit broadcast networks who use federal grant money to help pay for some of their own educational content. One example: Magic School Bus TV content produced with partial funding by NSF and DOE, even though Scholastic, Inc. is a for-profit company listed on NASDAQ [SCHL]. I’ve never heard of a lesbian episode on the Magic School Bus series, and it has nothing to do with the government funding — more likely it’s a commercial reason to avoid the culture wars.
Those are all good points, Michael. I guess I should have said it adds to the increasingly timid state of PBS affiliates that results from a combination of factors. In truth, WGBH has been one of the staunchest affiliates in terms of standing up to external pressures, but even there, they’ve trimmed their sails more than once.
As far as rejecting federal funds, I know that’s not feasible. From my experience in public broadcasting, though, I think it could be liberating.
I’d LOVE to see this endless debate about CPB (or any other public entity) funding of Public Radio include WHY the taxpayer funds public radio.
The discussion always seems to one-sided. It’s not charity. It’s what we in public radio get in exchange for agreeing to certain stipulations, such as the ban against editorializing, or calls to action.
The fear of external influence is read, of course. But the grants already come with strings attached.
So when someone complains that public radio (in my case) gets taxpayer dollars, I usually say, “You’re right. Let’s get rid of it. But let’s get rid of all the requirements the federal government already places on broadcasters.”
Of course, when I was in commercial radio (I had some ownership interest) , I got the same thing. “The public owns the airwaves.” And I’d always say, “Great, your airwaves that I work at lost $250,000 this year, pay up.” That shut them up.
If that doesn’t work, I’d ask, “Really? Who’d YOU buy them from?”
I’m with you, Bob. Public radio and TV should be funded by the public, not the government. Too many NPR listeners and PBS viewers (90% as far as I’ve been told) are freeloaders.
Make ’em pay.