It’s clear by now, after several repeats of the same cycle, that the right doesn’t really want to defund PBS. And the left, unfortunately, isn’t truly interested in saving PBS, either.
Why would the right defund? For a tiny investment—about a hundredth of a penny from each federal dollar—the GOP gets a leash on public broadcasting that ensures that it will never fulfill its promise to serve as a real alternative to the commercial networks.
As long as public broadcasters are forced to go before Congress, hat in hand, to beg for another annual appropriation, their leaders will make sure not to do anything that will put them on the Republicans’ “naughty” list—keeping PBS safe, bland and right-of-center, rather than the home for experiment, controversy and the unheard opinion that noncommercial TV was envisioned to be.
PBS‘s progressive friends, on the other hand, do it no favors by reflexively rallying around it, holding up Big Bird as the emblem of public TV at its most innocuous. Sure, Sesame Street is great—but if that’s all we demand of PBS, that it continue to teach children their ABCs and how to share, that’s all it’s going to give us. The familiar cycle of threats from the right and unconditional support from the left guarantees a public broadcasting system that increasingly toes the establishment line.
What really needs saving is PBS‘s soul. We should insist that it live up its founding mission statement that it would “help us see America whole, in all its diversity,” and present the pro-consumer, pro-worker, pro-environment perspectives that corporate advertisers are never going to subsidize.
To play the role that it’s meant to, public broadcasting needs public money. But it has to be money it can count on, from a dedicated revenue stream (like the BBC‘s TV license fees) or, better yet, a permanent, independent trust fund that would insulate programming from Washington’s political games.
With the status quo, PBS‘s funding is a political lever—one that conservatives are all too eager to pull. We don’t need to cut PBS‘s funding—we just need to take the controls out of politicians’ hands.
And everyone else it going to ignore the battle, since it doesn’t add a dime to their pocket.
Jim, wouldn’t get rid of it serve the same function? It wouldn’t pose a potential threat to the status quo if it didn’t exist.
Do you feel it serves a propaganda purpose to have ostensibly “non-corporate” public media toeing the party line?
The GOP doesn’t want to get rid of PBS. How else would General Electric get its pro-war messages out to a public that likes to think of itself as thinkers?
You can’t by that kind of publicity anywhere else for the price GE pays: specifically, the price of producing the McLaughlin Group, with free airtime and a big thank you for filling a time-slot PBS doesn’t otherwise have the budget to fill.
While I can see Jim’s point, I also know that, for instance, the right HAS carried through on their ‘gun rights’ crapola, so that just about any idiot is deemed to have a ‘constitutional right’ to own as many firearms as he wants UNTIL he shoots somebody (THEN we get to be shocked and sorry and blame the media, society, schools, etc, etc). Some of the sensible conservatives may go along with these stupid ‘gut-level’ issues just to get re-elected, and then, as the issues develop inexorable momentum feel like they have no choice. And with the right wing machismo, they may well bluff each other upward until they feel it a matter of perverse honor to institute it (be it abortion bans, EPA dissolution, prayers in public schools, or PBS defunding, to name a few). Always remember that we’re dealing with rabid idealogues here, so normal compromise is FAR from a preferred option for them…
This is all bluster from both sides. When any politician gets his book advance deal (money from publishers to influence the politician writer?) where do they get reviewed? NPR. It has yet to turn down any corporate book (and has never covered the thousands and thousands of zines – the last golden age of literature in the world). Let NPR/PBS talk about their own revenue sharing deals, or book price fixing, or…. well anything real – then maybe there would be some danger for NPR or PBS loosing funding.
I have already written to both PBS and NPR that until they stop accepting funding from these corporate interests, I won’t send them a penny. I have supported them for over 30 years but now I am offended by these “commercials” and probably many others feel as I do. Other than withholding my moneys, and writing letters, there’s not much more I can do. Actually NPR reviews many books and cds and I do like to hear the reviews regardless who wrote them. Some are great – others I just don’t buy. And they don’t need to review magazines, they often will refer to articles written in them . This grabs my interest and I may eventually buy a subscription – for example, to The Nation, or The Atlantic Monthly. And I find WNYC radio fm and am to be excellent.
This piece sums it up very well.
I agree with this article basically.One thing I have wondered about though……..Why does PBS need govt money at all?I saw a good work on their funding structure.It seems in line with other entities that do well in the general market place.They should break with govt funding.Open their books with simple declarations that separate funding from content,and tie it into tax deductions for that funding.If they have an ounce of balls they will be able to keep their “souls” in that arrangement.Is there always pressure from contributors?Always.No way around that.You dont thing the government put pressure on them?If they cant stand the heat……..
The problem with michael e’s argument is that he says that teh way to save the system designed to provide an alternative to the for-profit market is to make the funding system more like that of the for-profit system that fails to generate the alternative voices that are not otherwise heard.