Are we now facing legislated ignorance? (Re: U.S. Public Broadcasting funding)

I see no valid reason why the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio should continue to receive government funding. The original justification for it was that PBS and NPR offered artistic and cultural programming not available elsewhere. This is no longer the case in a 500 channel broadcast universe.I realize the consolidation of ownership gives a false impression that diversity of opinion and viewpoints is proportional to the quantity of available channels. Still, broadcast options available to joe consumer is much more diverse and readily available than when PBS and NPR were first created.Since government funding of both PBS and NPR is only 12% to 15% of their operating budgets, I don’t see much of a change in either market share or type of programming if the funding were removed. They are already essentially operating as a private non-profit organization and are allowed to have commercial sponsors and so are already exposed to corporate influence.Does this mean that removing government funding would require commercials? Well, this has also been in place at PBS for a long time. PBS doesn’t call them commercial spots, rather they are "underwriters’ messages" but they serve the same purpose. Arguments about profit motives determining program selection and the corruption of programming due to corporate influence fail because the situation is already in place. 85% to 88% of PBS and NPR funding is outside of government support.The average private company can withstand a 15% drop in annual revenues and continue to survive. They would have to adjust and find other sources to replace that lost revenue, just as any other private organization would have to do. The transition would not be as dramatic as many believe and could be phased in over time. I’ve seen articles that imply bankruptcy and forced removal from the airwaves if funding were removed. It isn’t so.I enjoy the programming at both PBS and NPR. I believe they are unique and beneficial. I also believe that those organizations have matured and can stand on their own without government taxpayer support.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 06-25-2005 10:11 AM

So according to you, and I’m paraphrasing here: Any more doom and gloom you care to throw out?You forgot the disasters of the Bush I and Bush II presidencies?Surely you consider both of them to be disasters.The left considers everything to be a disaster when Reps are in power.

Ok, I'm beginning to see your point on ubiquitous ignorance.Of course, from your point of view, there are the elite few who know the "truth".

I disagree. The legal status of a corporation need not change as a result of a shift in revenue source. PBS and NPR are currently non-profit organizations and they would retain that non-profit status after federal funding has been discontinued. The withdrawal of federal support will not distort their culture by altering their corporate mission towards the exclusive pursuit of profit.All the arguments using the terrible problems associated with the greedy pursuit of profit in for-profit corporations fail as a motivating factor because they will continue to be non-profits. I don’t see a 15% shift in the revenue source as causing them to change their status to a for-profit corporation.Besides, they will need to retain their non-profit status in order to continue to receive State and local government funding as well as tax exempt status. The 15% shift in their revenue source represents a marketing challenge certainly, but one that can be overcome with the end result being a more efficient organization.I’ve already discussed commercial spots in my previous thread. PBS has them now and will continue to have them. I don’t believe a case has been made that the current commercial sponsors are having undue influence on programming to the detriment of the public good. The withdrawal of federal funding will not change that. Whatever you believe the corporate influence to be right now, good or bad, it will stay the same after federal funding has been phased out.Education can, should, and will continue to be one of the goals at the network. PBS and NPR can and will continue to be the network by the people and for the people. The primary source of their support comes from the public, from memberships, from viewers like you as often heard on the PBS telemarketing campaigns. The remaining sources are from corporate sponsorship, foundations, colleges, auctions, among others None of that will change. Only federal sponsorship.I will add a caveat to my discussion with the issue of upgrading the member station infrastructure. I would support a one-time federal appropriation to provide necessary upgrades, (i.e digital equipment, etc.) and then begin a program to phase out federal support. State and local government support would remain.

The way you phrase the hypothetical forces a ‘no’ answer. If your hypothetical were correct then I’m confident that Reps wouldn’t make a bid deal out of it. The Dems would though. They would be the ones screaming for funding cuts.Debate over federal funding for PBS and NPR is not a new issue. It seems to surface every few years and it always gets defeated because it is so easy to politicize. Who wants to eliminate big bird? Who would vote to rid us of Bert and Ernie, NOVA, and all of the other fine programming. The answer is no politician ever does.Here’s an example, Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the 25 percent reduction in funding for the coming year would be ‘disastrous’ for public broadcasting, which he said is the most valuable resource we have for getting quality programming for children."Now what politician is going to oppose programming for children? The 25% reduction the congressman is speaking of is only the federal appropriation portion. Given my previous post, we know this amount actually represents 25% of the 15% of the total funding for PBS and NPR or 3.8%. The actual reduction in real dollars is 3.8%. But nobody hears that, they hear 25% or 50% and fear the elimination of these organizations altogether.Aside from the economics, I realize your question is more on the issue of media bias. To that I would say I found Bill Moyers decidedly left wing in his views despite his occasional conservative guests. But he is not on the air anymore and I haven’t seen much evidence of bias since his departure. So no, I don’t believe there is a political bias as regards to PBS. NPR on the other hand may be a different story, I couldn’t say because I haven’t listened to it for quite some time.

I would say no. The elimination of federal funding would be difficult enough without adding expenses such as additional FCC fees that had previously been waived. There may be legal ramifications that would prevent the waiver. Even so, as part of the privatization process, special considerations could be made to maintain the waiver.Membership has been on the decline at PBS and I realize they are having budget problems with federal funding let alone having the funding removed. Still, other non profits have to deal with these situations, PBS and NPR can also especially if a good plan were put together and funding was removed gradually. Nobody wants to see PBS or NPR off the air.