Another editorial on federal funding of public broadcasting

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'd like to observe that many of the things you mention are paid for by state and local governments, not the Federal government.

We can talk about broadcasting and the philosophy of broadcasting; should broadcasting serve ONLY the biggest possible audiences for each station, or should broadcasting be set up in such a way that small specialized audiences are also served. We know that if government backs off and leaves broadcasting to be just one more business enterprise floating around in the sea of unfettered free enterprise, what we will have is radio managed just like a Quiznos sandwich shop, or Batteries Plus or Toyota or a Wall Street Bank. The delivery of news, the delivery of music, the delivery of public discussion is part of what makes our society different than say North Korea or some African nation at the mercy of war lords heading up opposing religious factions.

If you insist on making this a discussion of what form of government is permissable in this land of ours, then be prepared to defend and support positions. If we are going to discuss (which we aren't) what activities are allowable for state and local government but not politically acceptable for the federal government, I don't know why you would excuse states and cities for spending tax money on a museum or park but the feds can't. Please take that issue to some discussion board where their charter is to discuss forms of government.

Here is part of what the people who value "public radio" have to mentally work their way through, come up with philosophy, and sell that philosophy to the public, to charitable organizations and to legislators.

The rules, the policy, the philosophy of 50 or 100 years or 200 years ago may not fit the circumstances of today. 50 years ago we had locally owned banks with officers and stockholders right in our communities. 50 years ago we still had department stores that were locally owned with officers and stockholder right in our communities. 50 years ago we still had relatively small manufacturing companies where the officers and stockholders lived in our communities. 50 years ago we still had utility companies that had offices and faciltites and management in our communities. Back then it seemed like local responsibility for "cultural" voices: libraries, museums, newspapers, broadcasting was very logical, very American.

Fast forward to today: My utility bills come from offices in neighboring states and I send my checks their. My monthly bank statement may come from a city three states distant. My wife buys a dress in an Atlanta suburb and I get the credit card bill from Milwaukee!

Today we all live in this billowing sea of giant national and multinational corporations. Little hometown charitable organizations are like a flea on the back of a grasshopper floating on some seaweed in the middle of the ocean. Right or wrong, our legislators have decided that maybe these fleas trying to operate radio in the communities of America need some organization at a national level to help keep the seaweed from capsizing, and to keep that organization at a national level from being capsized by some less than charitable large broadcasting operations, maybe the federal government needs a little bit of involvement in that process.

You have made it clear that as a political and philosophical being, you don't of approve of ANY amount of federal money going into that. We hear you. Many of us are saying that we struggle amongst ourselves to come up with "how much federal participation should there be?" We discuss: "Is THIS the time for that funding to go away, or is this the time it is needed worse than ever?" Do you hear us? Discussion is a two-way street. Come join the traffic. It's more fun than always driving on a one-way street.

 

[Talk_Dude]

You have made it clear that as a political and philosophical being, you don't of approve of ANY amount of federal money going into that. We hear you. Many of us are saying that we struggle amongst ourselves to come up with "how much federal participation should there be?" We discuss: "Is THIS the time for that funding to go away, or is this the time it is needed worse than ever?" Do you hear us? Discussion is a two-way street. Come join the traffic. It's more fun than always driving on a one-way street.

I hold it to be a self-evident truth that the best time to fix something that is wrong is NOW. Given that wasting Federal money on public radio is an indefensible position, there is nothing to discuss about delaying what should be done right away. I hear people attempting to ignore the fundamental truth that Federal support of public radio with taxpayers' money is just plain wrong, period. The other side can produce argument after argument, they can attempt to come up with this excuse or that excuse, but the response remains the same. Using taxpayers' money to support public radio is fundamentally and intrinsically wrong.

This isn't an issue where one picks which street one drives on. Nothing will change the fact that it is wrong for the Federal government to spend taxpayers' money on public radio. So, what else is there to discuss?

 

[TheBigA]

There's a reason why so many libraries are called "Carnegie Libraries", as in Andrew Carnegie.

Just want to point out that Carnegie's donation only covered construction of the libraries, not operations. So now, 100 years later, those Carnegie libraries are funded by state, local, and yes some federal funds.

If the American people want museums, art galleries, public libraries, and so forth, then the American people will have to cough up donations on their own to fund them.

It's fine to say that, and lots of people do exactly that. But as I pointed out earlier, the tax laws were changed to make charitable giving more difficult and less advantageous for the giver. If we're going to return this country to the way things were 100 years ago, let's return the tax laws to where they were before Reagan, so wealthy Americans can give money to charities of their choice and get the full deduction, as so many peole did at one time. You can't demand everything be paid for by donation, while at the same time remove the deduction for those donations.

There is nothing that "public" radio does that is such a vital interest of the nation that would cause the nation undue distress if public radio stations ceased to exist.

Same with the Voice of America and lots of other things. But those other things aren't being discussed. This is a case of selective defundung for obvious political reasons, and why it won't happen.

Every year, the CPB makes its case in front of multiple approrpriations committees, and every year, they get approved. Those are not blanket appropriations, but for very specific uses. The appropriations have been approved through 2012, and I have every reason to believe they will be continued into 2013.

 

[listener-in]

I'd like to observe that many of the things you mention are paid for by state and local governments, not the Federal government. Also, many of our art galleries, public libraries, as so forth were funded by charitable donations from the private sector...

The last I knew, we all use the same national currency at all levels of government, and a tightening of the budget belt at the federal level inevitably affects the dominoes all the way down the levels of government. As long as we remain the UNITED States, that will remain a fact of life. You are correct about the charitable origins of many institutions, but charity only went so far.

.....If the American people want museums, art galleries, public libraries, and so forth, then the American people will have to cough up donations on their own to fund them.

.....If it cannot be done by either voluntary public donations or by a profit-making operation, then that should be seen as proof that it simply isn't needed or desired enough.

You assume that everyone who desires and wants to benefit from these things can afford to pay, and if they can't afford them, they are undeserving. Marie Antoinette, anyone? Our country painstakingly built up structures and institutions - including public broadcasting - that enabled all, rich and poor, to share in America's bounty; for the most part, rich and poor supported and were proud of these institutions as an integral part of America's fabric. Now, apparently, we are unlearning the lessons we had learned, sometimes grudgingly but often willingly, since the Republic was founded.

I respect the sincerity of your opinions, but if I were you I would pray that they are never adopted wholesale. I don't think you would care for the impoverished-in-spirit America they would lead to.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I respect the sincerity of your opinions, but if I were you I would pray that they are never adopted wholesale. I don't think you would care for the impoverished-in-spirit America they would lead to.

Nothing steals the richness of spirit like living on handouts. If people had to make a deliberate decision to pay for public radio, then they'd appreciate it more. Running stations that broadcast elitist content for snobs on the taxpayers' dime doesn't improve America's spirit.

 

[TheBigA]

If people had to make a deliberate decision to pay for public radio, then they'd appreciate it more.

The point is that millions do. But if they don't, the government prevents public stations from putting their content behind a pay wall. That's what I'm saying, is that the government itself has made it difficult for public radio to exist on its own. So millions appreciate it and aren't required to pay for it. That is part of the American way. Because millions of people around the world enjoy lots of things this country does and they aren't required to pay for it. We are the land of plenty, and the land of the free. And people some interpret that to mean they can enjoy the riches this country produces and not have to pay for it.

 

[MattParker]

Museums and libraries don't get money from advertisers. You don't go to museums and see billboards or hear commercials when you stop at exhibits. Libraries don't stick paid announcements on or in books.

Museums and libraries don't have begathons. You don't go into the museum and find that this week, instead of being able to see paintings, sculpture or dinosaurs, you have to listen to a lecture on why the museum needs your money. You don't go to check-out a book and instead have to listen to a pitch for a donation (and get called a "free-loader" if you don't make one).

An author once called public radio fund-raisers with a satellite dish. That may be more accurate than comparing them to true cultural institutions. And like some fund raising groups, much of the donor's dollar goes to overhead and salaries and benefits and even to more fund raising, rather than the stated purpose. Some of the station websites list their boards of directors. I've looked at some of those list. I don't see broadcasters or journalists, people who care about radio, it's traditions and it's future. I see social fat cats for whom it's just one more cause, a chance to drink champagne with other members of their exclusive club and get another tax deduction.

Public radio is hobbled with too much public sector thinking. Maybe some private sector thinking would do it some good.

 

[Talk_Dude]

If people had to make a deliberate decision to pay for public radio, then they'd appreciate it more.

The point is that millions do. But if they don't, the government prevents public stations from putting their content behind a pay wall. That's what I'm saying, is that the government itself has made it difficult for public radio to exist on its own. So millions appreciate it and aren't required to pay for it. That is part of the American way. Because millions of people around the world enjoy lots of things this country does and they aren't required to pay for it. We are the land of plenty, and the land of the free. And people some interpret that to mean they can enjoy the riches this country produces and not have to pay for it.

Then the solution is not to have the government continue to pay. The solution is for the government to remove those obstacles that it created that made it so difficult for public radio to exist on its own.

As for paying to enjoy the riches of this country, in a truly free country, you are free to pay for the things you enjoy, and to not pay for the things you don't want to have. At least, when it comes to luxuries like entertainment and information on the radio. When it comes to things like police and fire protection, national defense, road and bridges, and other bona-fide national necessities, then there is a bona-fide need to require everyone to contribute. But public radio is not in the same category as bona-fide national needs.

Another aspect of a "free" country is that the majority cannot compel the minority to act against their will just by ganging up on the minority. If the majority can force the minority to act against its will on things like paying for national luxuries, then that country is not "free".

Museums and libraries don't get money from advertisers. You don't go to museums and see billboards or hear commercials when you stop at exhibits. Libraries don't stick paid announcements on or in books.

Guess again. Check out the overprices trinkets sold in museum gift shops, and the underwriting and sponsorship on many exhibits.

 

[TheBigA]

Museums and libraries don't get money from advertisers.

Actually some do. Some have sponsored exhibits that extol the virtues of the sponsor's products under the guise of education.

Museums and libraries don't have begathons.

Actually some do. I just attended one recently. But a lot of the examples you give have more to do with the fact that certain museums are OWNED by the public. If you go to privately owned museums and libraries, you get a different experience. And there are very strong regulations about what museums and libraries that receive government funding can do. Same with public broadcasting. You can't force someone to live under a certain system of rules, and then pull their money out from under them.

Public radio is hobbled with too much public sector thinking. Maybe some private sector thinking would do it some good.

For years I've said the same thing about schools. Kids go to schools for free, their tuition is paid by taxpayers, and parents feel the quality of that education is a function of the amount of money those schools receive. So they keep increasing taxes to pay for education. But test scores don't improve, and the systems that get the most public money, like the innre cities, don't turn out the best students. But that is how we do things in this country. There is a belief that a democracy needs an educated electorate. Public broadcasting is part of that thinking.

 

[TheBigA]

Then the solution is not to have the government continue to pay. The solution is for the government to remove those obstacles that it created that made it so difficult for public radio to exist on its own.

It's not that simple. The commercial broadcasters won't let it happen.

Plus the government actually gets something for its money that it would lose if public funding went away. Governor Christie of New Jersey is starting to discover that. He had this idea that he could sell the NJ public broadcasting system, and require the new owner to continue to serve the state. He's finding out that it's not that easy.

Look...every year the CPB goes to the various appropriations committees and presents their case for funding, and every year they get it. That's been going on for 43 years. The Congress has a reason for this, and they will continue to operate this way. The various laws and rules are way too complicated to change. And if they did, special interests would create a system far worse than currently exists, as you can see from the recent drug and health care laws.

Another aspect of a "free" country is that the majority cannot compel the minority to act against their will just by ganging up on the minority.

Funny to read that coming from you. Right now, the people opposed to continued funding of public broadcasting ARE the minority. They are about the same number of Congressmen who feel President Obama is a Muslim and not a born citizen. This is an extremist point of view, and the majority of those in Congress don't share it. And the Congress has the right and duty to appropriate money as it sees fit.

 

[listener-in]

Nothing steals the richness of spirit like living on handouts.

So paying to maintain our nation's culture is a handout? What that says is that those who cannot pay should be walled off from the cultural heritage and treated as an undeserving underclass. That road leads to Haiti or Somalia.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As for paying to enjoy the riches of this country, in a truly free country, you are free to pay for the things you enjoy, and to not pay for the things you don't want to have. At least, when it comes to luxuries like entertainment and information on the radio. When it comes to things like police and fire protection, national defense, road and bridges, and other bona-fide national necessities, then there is a bona-fide need to require everyone to contribute. But public radio is not in the same category as bona-fide national needs.

"Luxuries" like information on the radio.

They didn't mention radio in the constitution, but they did mention something called "Freedom of the Press". Our founding fathers were well aware that to have self-government, those who would govern (the people) would need to be well informed. I have always assumed the information on the radio, in the newspaper, on the TV, via the mail box, via speeches in the public square are ESSENTIAL, not a luxury for only the elite.

At this point one might be tempted to then say: O.K. Let's have some funding for news broadcasting, but cut out any funding that supports music broadcasts. THAT is CERTAINLY a LUXURY! Maybe not. The other day I was listening to public radio and they were explaining the piece of music I had just heard. It had a familiar sound. I don't recall the exact title but it was "Wellington's Conquest" or something similar. (Wellington was in the title.) The program host went on to explain. "You may think this was written to honor Wellington's defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo.... but that is not the case. This was written to honor the defeat of Napoleon's brother in another battle that was actually more critical, and a prelude to the later battle at Waterloo."

Napoleon had a brother? The battle of what? I must look that up! So if I become a better citizen, a better voter because I track down this bit of history which slid by me back at the time in life I was supposed to be in the tender love and care of the school system, can we then say that maybe the funding of public radio, or public lectures like the series I will be attending starting in February may be a bit more worthwhile than a decadent luxury?

 

[TheBigA]

"The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."

— John Adams, U.S. President, 1785

Public radio is an extension of the public education system, and it grew out of educational radio that has its foundations in the 1920s with stations like WHA in Madison WI. The public funding of radio does back to the foundations of broadcasting.

 

[MattParker]

Oh, c'mon, Cowboy. Knowing about Napoleon's brother makes you a better citizen? Puh-Leez! I like historical trivia, too, but I don't claim it has value beyond my own amusement and certainly I don't expect public tax dollars to support my hobby. Maybe CPB should start funding sports talk, too. I think the batting averages of the 1927 Yankees are as important to good citizenship as the name of Napoleon's brother.

I don't much care for most classical music and I really can't stand classical music fans as a group. I was volunteering at a public radio station during a pledge drive right after the station dropped midday and evening classical music for an all news-talk format. The classical lovers tied up the phone lines to vent. They were arrogant (as in our music is better than your music) with a distasteful sense of entitlement (our music is good; you must play it). At the time, there was still a commercial classical music station in the market but these people didn't like having to change stations or listen to an occasional Volvo commercial. These people never called to pledge; they just call to squawk. I'd take classical music off the radio just to annoy them.

Beyond that, there's music I like that's not heard on the radio. I think it's good music. From reading posts over on some of the music format boards, there are a lot of people whose music is not getting played any more. Real Oldies. Nostalgia/MOR/Great American Songbook. Broadway. Real (acoustic) folk - NOT AAA. Jazz - cool, hot, progressive, dixieland, big band swing... I don't see anybody wanting the government to subsidize these other music formats that are not commercially viable. No, just classical. What is it about rich people that they expect people with less to pay for the stuff they like? The same rich people who complain about welfare but want government to subsidize their businesses.

PS: BigA... The University of Wisconsin is a land-grant university. Like other early non-commercial stations operated by land-grant istitutions, WHA was an "extension" of the agricultural extension service. New York's Muncipal Broadcasting Service, WNYC, was an extension of the city's social services intended to help immigrants assimilate and the great unwashed learn to better themselves. It was instituted by Mayor "Red Mike" Hyland, a Tammany functionary, who also wanted to socialize public utilities and the subway system (which he did by keeping fares low until the two subway companies went broke).

At least public radio is performing better than public education. Today, the primary purpose of public schools is to keep kids under supervision (so they don't commit "mischief") and out of the work force (so they don't take jobs away from grown-ups). Now that the federal government has gotten involved in local schools (despite the 10th amendment) more and more resources are spent on "special education" for those who lack the capacity to be educated as curriculum for students who could benefit is constantly dumbed down. By the way, John Adams went to Harvard, a private school. So did his son, Quincy.

 

[TheBigA]

PS: BigA... The University of Wisconsin is a land-grant university. Like other early non-commercial stations operated by land-grant istitutions, WHA was an "extension" of the agricultural extension service.

And you're telling me they received no federal funds at U of W?

Look...radio is a mass medium. No radio station airs programming that everyone likes. That's just how it is. I was forced to learn lots of things I didn't like in school, and quite often those courses were mandated by the feds. Truthfully, most people don't want to be educated. It's easier to be ignorant. But a democracy can't allow that to happen. They have to at least make an effort to educate the public.

 

[MattParker]

Truthfully, most people don't want to be educated. It's easier to be ignorant. But a democracy can't allow that to happen. They have to at least make an effort to educate the public.

Seems like it's already happened. And there is some evidence that the founders, including the aforementioned John Adams, envisioned a Republic and a meritocracy. They did not want government entrusted to the ignorant. They did want education available to those who wanted it and could benefit from it. There is also evidence people who want education will find a way to get it; that's why Andrew Carnegie, who lacked formal education and instead read at the library, funded libraries.

Prior to the Carnegie Commission, there was no federal funding of what was then called "educational radio." Land grant schools received grants of land from the federal government and their endowment was income from those properties or proceeds from the sale of those properties. There was some direct funding for mandated programs like ROTC, which was compulsory for two years up to the 60s. Most of the early funding for public radio came from the Ford Foundation (Henry Ford also lacked formal education).

Those early educational stations, operated by extension services, don't have much in common with today's public radio. Imagine Mr. Kimbell with a transmitter plus occasional lectures about the importance of the farmer from Mr. Douglas (without fife accompaniment). The rest of the time was filled with classical music (even though the farmers would probably have preferred country music).

 

[TheBigA]

Land grant schools received grants of land from the federal government and their endowment was income from those properties or proceeds from the sale of those properties. There was some direct funding for mandated programs like ROTC, which was compulsory for two years up to the 60s.

Most of the current appropriations for public radio are done the exact same way. The Congress has been very sensitive during the past 25 years about just writing a check to CPB with money to be spent any way they want. If funding was removed, so would those specific programs.

I think you're wrong about educational radio prior to 1967. Entire books have been written on the subject. I have a few, but they're in storage. I'll see if I can dig a few out for your edification.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Oh, c'mon, Cowboy. Knowing about Napoleon's brother makes you a better citizen? Puh-Leez! I like historical trivia, too, but I don't claim it has value beyond my own amusement and certainly I don't expect public tax dollars to support my hobby. Maybe CPB should start funding sports talk, too. I think the batting averages of the 1927 Yankees are as important to good citizenship as the name of Napoleon's brother.

But if learning that Napoleon had a brother causes me to go to the library and check out books and I learn about Napoleon himself (the better known one) and I gain an understanding of what brought about the French revolution and out of all this reading I also come to realize the the American Colonies thrived and formed a great nation, not only because they had a good idea or two, but because the French alliance saved their buns, then yes, getting motivated because the commentator on a radio broadcast mentioned that Napoleon had a brother who won a battle could actually make me a better citizen.

I don't know what it did for any of my listeners, but 40 years ago I did talk radio for three years. But I can name some of the specific little tangental events that happened during those interviews and phone calls that became the foundation of changes in my value systems. And for twenty years after that I would run into people on the street who related their own life-changing revelations from what seemed to be throw-awy small-talk.

Speaking of government money. Later in life I went to a publicly funded university and placed a degree in my collection. Toward the end I was down to the point every additional class I took could be an elective of my choice. Simply because it was offered at a remote site halfway between where I lived and where I worked I took a class that may cause you to spit out your Wheaties if you are eating your breakfast. FOLKLORE. I laughed and told my friends it was the equivalent of "taking BASKETWEAVING" that we joked about in our generation. But here it was. A state university. Not only did they have a class in folklore, my professor informed me it was one of only FOUR universities in America where you could earn a DOCTORATE IN FOLKLORE!

Within ten years I realized that folklore class had more profound effect on my life and my ability to sort through all of the media oversaturation than any other class I ever took to earn that degree. May you and I have always been too narrow in defining what is useful to creating a better citizen.

 

[MattParker]

@Cowboy: Those folklore courses may have made you a better (happier, more successful) person. I don't think that's the same as making you a better citizen. It could be argued the draft would make you a better citizen.

Just because something is beneficial to you (or anybody) does not mean I (and everybody else) should be required to pay for it. Things the government pays for should be public benefits: They benefit everybody, nobody is excluded and use by one does not diminish use by all. You benefit from your education; not I. Listeners benefit from public radio; not non-listeners.

And bottom line, public radio does very well at sales/underwriting and at fund-raising. They don't need government money. I'm sort of reminded of that crazy guy in the green suit with dollar signs all over it doing infomercials hawking a book on how you can get "free money" from the government ("free money to quit your job, free money to buy your dream house, free money to travel...."). It seems like that also reflects the mentality in public radio. "If we don't get the money, they'll just give it to somebody else."

 

[Talk_Dude]

As for paying to enjoy the riches of this country, in a truly free country, you are free to pay for the things you enjoy, and to not pay for the things you don't want to have. At least, when it comes to luxuries like entertainment and information on the radio. When it comes to things like police and fire protection, national defense, road and bridges, and other bona-fide national necessities, then there is a bona-fide need to require everyone to contribute. But public radio is not in the same category as bona-fide national needs.

"Luxuries" like information on the radio.

They didn't mention radio in the constitution, but they did mention something called "Freedom of the Press". Our founding fathers were well aware that to have self-government, those who would govern (the people) would need to be well informed. I have always assumed the information on the radio, in the newspaper, on the TV, via the mail box, via speeches in the public square are ESSENTIAL, not a luxury for only the elite.

"Freedom of the Press" does not mean that the government is obligated to give anyone paper, ink, and access to a printing press. When the government is willing to fund newspapers in all cities where there's not enough market for a private enterprise newspaper to succeed, then we can talk about the government funding radio stations. Besides, the commercial radio stations do an excellent job (or used to do an excellnt job) of providing news and other important information. Maybe if capitalist radio station operators didn't have to compete with government funded stations, they could do an even better job.