Critic's Notebook: The value of public broadcasting

You may have heard that there are several bills now being floated in Congress -- most notably the budget plan issued Friday by the GOP-run House Appropriations Committee -- that propose entirely to defund public broadcasting. These are political, not practical, proposals: The money such cuts would save is not meaningful in terms of balancing the budget, and what it would spare any individual taxpayer is literally small change. If your cable or cellphone provider were to raise your rates by the amount you now pay to help fund public broadcasting -- an average, by the estimate of the public-broadcasting advocacy group www.170millionamericans.org, of $1.35 a year -- you'd never even notice. Certainly, you wouldn't cancel your subscription over it.

It's your small change, fair enough, and you may feel that nothing that PBS or NPR or their affiliates provide is anything you'd miss. We could go back and forth on that all day and never get anywhere. And, admittedly, I'm one who thinks that paying taxes is indeed "patriotic" -- it's the people acting as a body, not just out of highly localized self-interest -- even as I don't support every use toward which they're turned. As it is, public broadcasting is already supported largely by viewer and listener donations and corporate grants, and will not disappear from the face of the nation if Washington turns off the already trickling tap -- at least not in money-rich, big cities like ours, though less well-heeled communities may suffer real losses. Which is just the sort of market inequality that government funding is meant to allay.

In 2005, as PBS was again coming under attack for "liberal bias" -- it's liberal in the sense that it stands for things such as scientific inquiry and equal access and "the arts," which by their nature are provocative, and I suppose in that it's partially supported by tax dollars, but this is a disposition, not a platform -- I focused a critical eye on the network and wrote this essay/feature for The Times. And though some of the small details of broadcasting have changed since then, I'd make the same arguments today.

Paradoxically, the less that public broadcasters have to rely on their audiences -- the less they're required to behave like a commercial network -- the more equitably and impartially they may serve them: Secure funding makes demographics and ratings less relevant. News, for example, does not have to be run as a circus. And while the expanding televerse seems to be taking care of much of the business that once made PBS such a clear alternative to the narrow interests of commercial television -- there are whole channels now for science and travel and food and children's programs and even British TV, all traditionally big pieces in the mosaic of public broadcasting -- there still remains a difference in seriousness and scale and depth and purpose in what they produce. PBS is, uniquely, a network with a mission, and not merely a business plan.

Neither PBS nor NPR is beyond criticism; they are run by humans, who play games and get things wrong. (See: the Juan Williams affair.) PBS seems to me less adventurous than in decades past, which may not be entirely due to a growing necessity to please the crowd. Not every program the network -- which is to say, its member stations and producing partners -- produces or acquires is of equal quality. (A few are no better than infomericals.) Perhaps its mission could use a business plan. These things should be open for discussion. But public broadcasting remains unique and valuable: Its charter is not to show you only those things you already know you like or to confirm you in your beliefs, but rather to open you up to new things, to enlarge your mind, which means possibly to change it. Its underlying purpose is to make us smarter, better citizens, and that this is worth $1.35 a year seems to me well beyond dispute.

Related:

PBS and its grand ambitions: A week of viewing finds its promise trumps the politics, Barney and all

-- Robert Lloyd

Photos: Top: Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern in "Downton Abbey." Bottom: Senior correspondents of "PBS NewsHour." Credit: PBS.

Comments

[Matthew Powers]

Couldn't agree more, Robert. Your post nicely makes the point that while public broadcasting is not infallible, it remains a crucial part of a solid, democratic media system. As the co-author of a recently released report about public media and political independence, it's worth noting that US per capita spending on public media is well below spending in other leading democracies.

http://www.savethenews.org/blog/11/02/10/public-media-and-political-independence-lessons-future-journalism-around-world

[Anthony Oland]

Halting the funding of PBS would be a huge mistake, and a further effort to be sure to dumb down the American perspective of world news and keep it that way!

[nick]

The federal government should not be in the business of financially supporting news programs. Period. When they do it becomes propaganda like Radio Free Europe, news with a political purpose. NPR has demonstrated is acumen to attract big donors like the recent Joan Croc (of McDonald's) bequest of hundreds of millions of dollars. When you're getting that kind of private money, it's time to get off the federal dole, whether it's a "drop in bucket" or not.

[brett in L.A.]

Federal defunding of NPR will not kill NPR or the public radio local stations. Local stations pay NPR to be a part of it and buy its programs. NPR gives no money to local stations. 2/3rds of these stations are affiliated with colleges or universities, the last third are run by local communities. Even if NPR disappeared tomorrow, public radio broadcasting would not. There are over 700 stations who carry and pay for NPR, and almost 150 NPR public stations who are not members of NPR. "Prairie Home Companion" the most popular public radio show is produced by NPR's competitor, American Public Radio (APR), which has over 800 stations in their network and gets only 3% of its budget from federal funds. Public radio can survive federal defunding and remain vital and local, where it belongs.

[Meredith]

What you seem to be forgetting, Nick, is one of the main missions of PBS. To provide non-commercial educational television to children. No one else does that. No one. If the government cares about education, than they cannot take away PBS' funding.

[Greg]

I don't care about the regular programming on "public" television/radio. It is the biased news reporting that gets me. If the programming is valuable, then the listeners should pay for it. That is the case with other broadcasters. If no advertisers, then the program dies. Maybe in a previous environment, PBS and NPR were necessary. But in the world of 100s of cable channels and SiriusXM on the radio side with multiple channels, these networks need to stand on their own...or fail on their own. I don't want my $1.35 per year to support them.

[Ome-Coatl]

"Liberal bias":
- free speech
- scientific inquiry
- human equality

Are these the "horrible" traits that Conservatives seek to eradicate from society?

[Grandpa]

It would be a shame to have to do it, but it may take converting PBS to a premium-pay channel (such as HBO and Showtime) to keep it financailly viable and independent. I'd easily pay the $30 or $40 per month to sustain it.

[Hubertus Effing]

I think PBS does a great job in relation with their operational budget. A superpower like the USA deserves a well funded public radio and TV. I am a Berlin, Germany based producer of a TV art show which also is broadcasted by many PBS affiliates in the USA. At the same time I deal with Dutch and German public TV. Only the Dutch ( tiny country with only 5,5 million TV household) public TV has an operational budget of close to one billion US Dollars. If PBS would get only a fraction what European public broadcasters get, it would be the best Public TV in the world.
Bert Effing, Berlin Germany

[Artist]

Typical Socialist view point. It is not the governments place to spend my money. If PBS is so important then it would stand on its own legs but it can't because it is not that important except to those who like a free ride at tax payers expense.

[Laurence Glavin]

Last summer, the public radio network in the state of Mississippi deleted "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" from its schedule due to a controversial guest. No problem: Mississippi has dozens of full-power non-commercial FMs, let one of those pick it up. But a casual inspection of the FCC website revealed that almost ALL of the full-power non-comms in the state not operated by the Mississippi public radio network were run by "religious" groups. Until "Fresh Air" was reinstated due to listener response, there was a strong possibility that an entire state would not be able to hear controversial but worthwhile programming, while "religious" fundamentalism would continue apace to keep its audience in the middle ages.

[Jack Scribe]

Public broadcasting is a perfect example of government excess. We have the Center for Public Broadcasting, PBS, and NPR...just to name the larger organizations that are at the government trough. Toss into the mix American Public Media and Public Radio International. I believe in the 'value of public broadcasting' but not with such sloppy redundancies. Develop ONE agency - roll CPB, PBS and NPR together - and create a way for this organization to be self-sustaining.

[Dwight Bobson]

When I see people referring to all of the channels available as if they make NPR and PBS duplicative, I know they don't listen to or watch public broadcasting programs. Those who do listen to and watch NPR and PBS see that it is a canard immediately. I have tried to watch the Discovery channels and the poor quality of information is self-evident, assuming one can sit through the constant and lengthy interruptions pushing for me to buy one more material object I do not need.

[Jack]

PBS is Democratic a Democratic Party Propaganda machine.

[Joyce Hosick]

The $1.35 per year cost to taxpayers is not the point - the point is government has no business investing any tax dollars in television broadcasting.

[Niki]

Oh please, PBS is as neutral as it comes today. Between Fox Cable News and MSNBC I feel sick in my stomach. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I love PBS because I prefer my news be news and not propaganda for either party. Even the nightly news on the regular broadcast channels are starting to play into the political theatrics and it makes my blood boil. The lies, misleading information, and obnoxious opinionated newscasters are HURTING not helping America. We are stronger as a nation when we are correctly informed and properly educated.

[marc conder]

I fully support the arts, experimental broadcasting, up to and including alternative life style programing. I have always enjoyed the varied content of PBS and NPR, never know what might pop up next.
However, we have a thriving television and radio industry. Hundreds, if not thousands, of productions occur every year. That is the nature of unfettered communication. US taxpayers should not be coerced into paying for, nor subscribing to some one else's idea of 'public broadcasting.' If the content is of sufficient merit, it will attract viewers...who will chose to subscribe or not, based on their circumstances. Not by federal government dictate.