Funding Public Broadcasting

In our house, we think public broadcasting is important.  We’ve been listening, watching and sending them money since before we had two nickels to rub together.  We’ll continue sending money to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and checking the box saying we want our donation split with National Public Radio.

That said, it’s our conviction that government at all levels should stop funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

We don’t care whether or not the CPB or NPR might be biased.  Republicans and conservatives have always been correct when they complain that news media lean left.  Most Americans – and this should include conservatives – would have it no other way.  The two organizations most in denial about political preferences have to be the New York Times and NPR.  It’s comical to listen to the Ombudsman from either organization when they occasionally come under especially pointed criticism.  The least they could do is admit who they are – they feel they’re working for the greater good.  We can deal with advocates;  it’s the delusional that run us off.

That said, N and I think that NPR has the best news broadcasts in media;  a close second is The MacNeil/Lehrer Report on PBS.  Morning Addition and All Things Considered have more time and cover more ground.  These news programs are not biased.

That said, there are no right leaning programs on either NPR or PBS to balance the hard left programming they offer.  Charlie Rose is a progressive that offers a useful and informative program.  However, Bill Moyer and Tavis Smiley offer no redeeming value to me.  Tom Ashbrook’s On Point and Michel Martin’s Tell Me More are interesting if you want to know what progressives are thinking or how looney they can get – we listen.

FoxNews is a hopelessly misnamed cable channel offering a good deal of hard right and seriously distorted programming.  There is no balancing lefty programming there.  Never the less, I can speak for their nightly news and tell you that it is a good effort and unbiased.  Fox’s Special Report is a useful and informative, right leaning, news and commentary program.  MSNBC is the mirror of FoxNews.  AM radio has far more right wing crazies than NPR has lefties.  CBS has 60 Minutes, somebody carries The View.

Roger Ailes is an offensive businessman making money with his programming and gloating about the fact that he’s “winning”.  NPR’s leaders recently got caught being their progressive selves – intolerant and deluded.  I hope NPR will continue to clean house and find some business people to run the outlet because progressives don’t have a clue about economics.

Only one of all the outlets mentioned here enjoys public funding.  I can’t think of anyone that would support government funding for any of the other outlets.  Why one if not all?

House Republicans are correct to kill funding for NPR and government should gradually kill funding for all of Public Broadcasting.  Do Democrats want to subsidize Fox?  Most importantly, as George Will says, government should never subsidize news.

As for non-news programming, government should do far less subsidizing than it does but if help is irresistible, aim at a program, not a company and certainly not an entire network.

How do you like these arguments for continuing funding?

·         The money is negligible for a wealthy nation.  In 2004, it was only $500 million.

·         That’s only $1.70 per person in the United States – just $6.80 for a family of four. 

·         The $500 million is very small in comparison to what is spent in other countries.

The progressive mind at work – I’d like to make that buck seventy a line item on everybody’s pay check.

One defense of public broadcasting is the lack of commercials – nice but tell me that during their funding drives.  Another defense is programming that “probably couldn’t get a sponsor” – such as classical music mid-day, Sesame Street, Bill Moyers, Tavis Smiley, Charlie Rose and most of all, local programs and local politics.  But, if we can’t or won’t support CBC as citizens, let them advertise.  There should be no place for government.

If Sesame Street, for example, disappears and we determine that it is essential to public good, then government should support the program – not the company, not the genre and not the outlet.  And think about that: “essential to public good” should not be a condition lightly or commonly determined.

I’ve heard PBS people – even Cokie Roberts – argue that without government subsidies, poor rural communities would have no TV or radio – queue the Aflac duck please, whaaaaat?  Others have said that PBS provides technical networks that support education and possibly public safety – an argument made often in South Carolina about ETV.  What about the internet?  Anyway, if there is anything to these arguments then support the thing, not the whole outlet and support it locally, not nationally.

I bore you with this because I believe Public Broadcasting is a microcosm for examining both government spending and the way that politicians get us divided and distracted. 

Upon examination, there is just no plausible argument for government to fund the highly worthwhile organization called the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – nor any organization like it.  And there should be no left/right aspect to the debate.