COPPS CALLS FOR SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC MEDIA

[TheBigA]

Here we go again. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps told a group today that he wants some government support for public broadcasting.

"It may be that some mix of creative business plans, experimental journalism, philanthropic and foundation support and, yes, enhanced support for public media may be part of the answer. I hope we can avoid a knee-jerk reaction against the concept of some increased support for public media.... To be clear, I’m not saying we need to duplicate what other countries are doing or that I have the answer on the right mix of public and private media -- but the point is that it is not unpatriotic to talk about it."

In the same speech, Copps called for increased regulation and more requirements for license renewal. This comes at a time when the government is running a multi-trillion dollar deficite, waging multiple front wars on terror, bailing out banks, mortgage companies, investment firms, and the auto industry, and is looking to create a multi-trillion dollar health insurance system. How high on the priority scale do you really think public broadcasting is in the halls of Congress?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Just for grins.... let me play "devil's advocate" for a minute. I'm "centrist" enough to see multiple angles on this topic.

There are several brands of Conservatism being expressed and practiced in our country, and any of them would agree with what you have expressed. We have REAL problems in this country, Mr. Kopps! We can't afford to mess around with your doo-gooder mentality.

It may not be the winning argument, but it, using Mr. Kopp's expression, It is NOT unpatriotic to express the concept that IF we had a more vibrant conversation going on in this country, the kind that some people dream could take place IF broadcasting played a citizenship role as well as an economic/entertainment role, we might have a citizenry, we might have a legislative role, we might have a regulatory mechanism in place that would have prevented deficits, terror attacks, and economic catastrophe.

Why are we in the mess we are in? Some would say the church (collectively) has warped our national psyche.*** Some would say that academia has warped our national psyche. Some broadcast people wail and caterwahl about how the "bean counters" have ruined radio as a place to work. I would offer the retort: "No, no, no. Look how the bean counters have given us a form of broadcasting that has contributed to ruining our civilization as a place to live, a place to exist."

What I just expressed may be wrong. What I have just expressed may be unpopular. What I have just expressed cannot be proved or disproved. BUT. What I just expressed IS NOT unpatriotic to throw into the blender for a little spice in the conversation.

*** That is NOT an anti-church statement. I am part of church. I will be teaching a Bible class lesson this Sunday which tackles head-on the meaning of 500 years of church history. Thank you Mr. Calvin, bless your little heart as we say in the South. (John Calvin was born 500 years ago this year.)

 

[TheBigA]

We have REAL problems in this country, Mr. Kopps! We can't afford to mess around with your doo-gooder mentality.

That's why it won't get done.

But the fact is that we also have a problem with government supported journalism. Because those who pay have the right to control the message. At least that was Richard Nixon's point of view. We have a lot of people in this country who questioned NBC's journalistic objectivity when it's owned by one of the world's biggest defense contractors. Imagine if news coverage came from the defense department itself! That's the way it is in some other countries...not here.

One of the biggest differences between this country and most of the other democratic countries in the world is the history of a free and independent press, operating untouched by the government. It's supported by the sense of liberty we all have. Look that word up. You can't live in a land of liberty and get a check from the government.

So we the people need to find a way to pay for free journalism. We can't wait for the government to do it, because their solution won't be what's best for us. It'll be what's best for them.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

One of the biggest differences between this country and most of the other democratic countries in the world is the history of a free and independent press, operating untouched by the government. It's supported by the sense of liberty we all have.

What we are not hearing is reasonable conversation about how we maintain free and independent press in our changing landscape.

You included the phrase "operating untouched by the government" to which I respond that another phrase also belongs in there: "untouched by vested corporate interests".... which is as hard to achieve as keeping government out.

My Dad could be a crotchety ol' guy on some topics and one day he was laying a lecture on me that NO BUSINESS should be operated by a corporation. They're too big. All business should be proprietorships. (He as a farmer had a real problem with Corporate Farms.) Finally when he slowed down for a minute, I asked him: "Under your plan, who will build battleships? Who will build airliners? What individual in this day an age can on his/her own build and operate an automobile factory, a defense plant, build a moon rocket. It takes BIG companies!"

I'm the first to point out to you that we have a problem in this country. This is not the day of the little home town daily newspaper owned by one family. This is the day where a newspaper company in even rural areas needs to own maybe a dozen little weekly newspapers to justify owning a printing press. Big city newspapers get beyond the finances of most families to own and operate.

I think Mr. Kopps is smart enough and honest enough to recognize that having government own or fund the production of news and public discussion is a problem, just as having big corporations that have defense plants or pharmaceutical plants in their portfolio owning the mechanisms that gather, organize and present news and public discussion.

Has our civilization progressed and complicated itself until there is no way we can have "freedom of the press" in actual practice?

 

[TheBigA]

I think we're still struggling with the industrial revolution more than 100 years later. This is no longer a country of private businessmen, farmers, or proprietors. If industrialization didn't kill that off in the first half of the 20th century, then all the litigation that's characterized the last 30 years did. Between lawsuits, regulations, and even potential identity theft, it's absolutely impossible for an individual to run a media company. The best way is to set up some form of corporation to protect yourself from all the craziness out there. Even the application process for a broadcast license assumes some form of corporate ownership.

We as a people need to become more comfortable with the fact that we need companies and corporations. And the fact is that no matter how big a corporation gets, it is not immune from the power of the federal government. The only protection the media has from the meddling of government is if the media itself has the power and support of the people. The government will do all it can to challenge the credibility of the media. They're doing that now with Fox.

There's an inherent contradiction in a lot of what we as a people do. We want a free and independent press, but we don't want to pay for it directly. About 10% of the users of public broadcasting actually become members. That's not good. Some of it has to do with the stuffed shirts and intellectuals who usually are on public media. But we have to figure out how we're going to pay for the services we enjoy, and it can't all come from the government.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think we're still struggling with the industrial revolution more than 100 years later. This is no longer a country of private businessmen, farmers, or proprietors. If industrialization didn't kill that off in the first half of the 20th century, then all the litigation that's characterized the last 30 years did. Between lawsuits, regulations, and even potential identity theft, it's absolutely impossible for an individual to run a media company.

This is heavy duty stuff we are discussing and I hope some other voices will join us.

I think we are stumbling over semantics here. Yes, if I decide tomorrow to open a very small janitorial service and I end up with an enterprise where I do about 50% of the work and I have a couple of employees doing the rest, I would certainly INCORPORATE the business. We have seen for years now the utilization of the old Sub-Chapter S corporations with their tax advantage features. But when we speak of corporate ownership of media versus private, ownership, proprietorship, etc, we are really debating ownership by corporations that are publically held and publically traded with all the burden and overhead and complications of the SEC etc, versus owners who, no matter what the legal mechanism of the ownership vehicle, have the freedome to move and shake IN THE STYLE of entrepreneurs and private ownership. No board meetings, no review of insider trading rules.... the head donkey makes a decision this morning and it is implemented this afternoon.

The only protection the media has from the meddling of government is if the media itself has the power and support of the people. The government will do all it can to challenge the credibility of the media. They're doing that now with Fox.

A small objection to your assertion. It is not the government challenging the credibility of Fox. It is the political party apparatus that is at odds with Fox, and vice-versa.

There's an inherent contradiction in a lot of what we as a people do. We want a free and independent press, but we don't want to pay for it directly. About 10% of the users of public broadcasting actually become members. That's not good. Some of it has to do with the stuffed shirts and intellectuals who usually are on public media. But we have to figure out how we're going to pay for the services we enjoy, and it can't all come from the government.

Our idea of patriotism seems to be to put a flag out for certain holidays. Now if they decide to have World War III we will see people put their energy, their money, their lives on the line in acts of patriotism.

When it comes to making our "system" work, we want someone else to carry the load. I don't want to do my share. I don't want to pay my fair share. That's the American way.

Going back to the beginning of your post, where you paint a picture of what no longer works in the post industrial revolution world.... that is a PROFOUND discussion. I don't know that I have response to debate your claim that the economics and values which we still want to recite at patriotic moments no longer have vibrancy. Have we become a civilization where there is no such thing as reading Horatio Alger and striking out on our own? Is it our destiny that all of our children and grandchildren must achieve their education and then sign on with some corporate recruiter and become a cog in the wheels of business ventures that dance to the tune of those who fiddle on Wall Street. Our political speechs during current campaigns do not acknowledge that we have reached that point. I tend to agree with you. Opening up your own sandwich shop or service station or furniture upholstering shop may no longer be a viable alterntive for those who have this "itch" to do their own thing.

Doesn't that make our country a whole like the Europe that our grand fathers and earlier ancestor left to find a place that allowed for economic freedom along with that which we are more like to discuss: religious freedom.

If as an individual I cannot operate my own radio station or my own community newspaper (even though I may take on the legal and tax status of a small closely held corporation) because the business climate is impossible, then maybe we are the "canary in the mine". The whole American economic system that we romanticize about IS DEAD!

Since I have these limitation imposed on me... I shall turn to the one remaining outlet available: I shall begin blogging!

 

[TheBigA]

Our idea of patriotism seems to be to put a flag out for certain holidays. Now if they decide to have World War III we will see people put their energy, their money, their lives on the line in acts of patriotism.

There are some who say we ARE in WW3. The way we as Americans deal with it is to hire professional soldiers, and make the war their problem. That's what they get paid to do. We stay here and watch the NFL.

The whole American economic system that we romanticize about IS DEAD!

I think that's true, but lots of people still cling to the mythology of free markets and the American Dream. While at the same time depending on their corporate employer to cover their health and life insurance requirements. Not unlike the way the company towns worked in the early industrial revolution, except that they also provided housing.

My great-grandparents had no social security or Medicare. When they got old, they lived with their kids, who took care of them until they died. For the most part, we don't live that way today. We have social security, IRAs, 401Ks, and lots of medical plans. Senior citizens either stay in their paid-off homes, or go to assisted living, paid for by Medicare. And the Congress is looking for ways to expand that program to pre-retirees.

My point is that there are inherent contradictions in the way we live, and Copps doesn't acknowledge that. He lives in the world where the government provides and controls, and big business is the enemy. The problem with that thinking is that big business is too big to fail, as proven last year. Government is trying to find a way around that. But if they do, it will put the final nail in the American economic system as we've known it.

 

[gr8oldies]

Very interesting conversation guys. It's at least been suggested that the feds bail out print newspapers and turn them into non-profits to preserve "real journalism"(presumably the government gets to decide what "real jornalism" is) it's not that far fetched to believe that at least some, possibly Copps, would entertain the idea of more support (and cynics like me would say control) for public media, with the three biggest players in radio perhaps less than a month away from Chapter 11, one wonders what "bailout" could occur to turn at least part of these holdings into "public stations" or have corporations agree to certain amounts of "programming in the public interest" (back door Fairness Doctrine"?) in exchange for a bailout. One administration adviser had even written about the feds having the authority to remove "innacurate" items from the internet.

I believe entrepreneurship is alive and well and many people make a living on the internet. On the other hand, there are people who believe that yes, you do graduate, graduate again, then talk to the corporate recruiter for your corporate job. Some, I think in government, would prefer everyone works for the government. I'm working on a project for a recruiting company now, and am reviewing recruiter web sites and the high level executive positions on these sites, and as much money as they pay, even if I were qualified I can't see myself enjoying that lifestyle. Some postings require 100% travel, much of it offshore, and I'm sure 120 hour work weeks.

I happened upon an online article about why you should never take a job (but work for yourself). In principal I agree...autonomy, set your own rates, have 20 customers who you can replace as opposed to only one employer who can fire you on a whim. Someone responded that it was better to work for "the man" because of health care, the fact that even if the boss doesn't like your presentation you still get paid, even when you have to redo it (you'll have to rewrite the article and not get paid for the first try if you're selling it directly). Plus it really does take a big corporation to build airliners as was mentioned. You don't do that in your garage. I'm sorry I don't have links but it was interesting.

How does this relate to radio? I know people who voice track and do voiceovers from their own home studio, not to mention build web sites related to radio and new media, former air talents are podcasting, and I know one who started a little network to broadcast high school sports on the air and online. Then again, so many more are blasting corporations for firing people, and waiting first for reregulation, now for bankruptcy,to get folks their DJ jobs back. Sorta IMO like losing your job at the Ford plant and insisting that the union is going to get you your job back (even though the union local office is now a payday loan store.)

Far as that goes, was RKO not a corporation? Nationwide Insurance that used to own WNCI, Columbus and others? Apparently Nationwide thought they had a better deal to buy naming rights to a sports arena than keep operating radio stations.

We may be at a crossroads in this country, on one hand "it's government's job to take care of me or make my employer take care of me" vs. "get the hell out of my way and I'll do it myself".

 

[TheBigA]

We may be at a crossroads in this country, on one hand "it's government's job to take care of me or make my employer take care of me" vs. "get the hell out of my way and I'll do it myself".

And if it was put up for a vote, it's likely to end up the way most things do: 50/50. Jessie Ventura was a guest on Larry King election night, and when discussing public votes on controversial issues, he said, "If the public had a chance to vote, I bet the majority would vote for a return of slavery."

The one thing I'd add to what you say, given my experience in public broadcasting, is that government funding of "real journalism" won't get people to listen, read, or watch. When the public has a choice between quality and crap, they tend to go for the crap. Especially if there's a cost differential between the two. The one thing new media has done is put the power in the hands of the consumer, and let's face it: Corporate American is better at ascertaining what they want than the government. Especially as evidenced by Mr. Copps. And that can lead to a lot of resentment and criticism, but the customer is always right.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

When the public has a choice between quality and crap, they tend to go for the crap. Especially if there's a cost differential between the two. The one thing new media has done is put the power in the hands of the consumer, and let's face it: Corporate American is better at ascertaining what they want than the government. Especially as evidenced by Mr. Copps. And that can lead to a lot of resentment and criticism, but the customer is always right.

When we have both had a good night's sleep, let come back and look at this quote. I think there is some tension, maybe some "contradiction in terms" in there.

Nobody really wants government involved in transactions where we are trying to determine the trade-off between what people want and what people need and what people should do. Self-government probably requires that individual citizens in sufficient number recognize that trade-off or else our system will fail because EVERY citizen makes only decisions based on WANT.

Either we as a populace will exercise some reasonable amount of self-discipline, or we will wake up some morning (not TOMORROW morning hopefully) living under a new regime that jams discipline down our throat.

Bringing all this back to radio: In days gone by the nature of FCC regulation was such that business people who did not feel some kind of "calling" about serving the public need would not become owners or would not remain owners because they didn't have the stomach to live with all the nit-picking from the FCC and having to lay your soul and your financial condition bare before the public.

We are WHERE we are in broadcasting today because the industry said to Washington: Give us what we WANT, not what we and the nation NEED. I WANT to own 100 or 200 stations. Great! We will give you what you WANT. I WANT to program my station without regard to whether the content brings about balance so the populace can sift through opposing values. Great! We will give you what you WANT. I WANT to arrange thin financing to monetize my purchase of additional stations. I WANT to stop having to file papers showing I have the financial ability to make my enterprise work. Great. We will give you what you WANT.

So we end up with a voting public and a vested group of business ventures who do not seem to see the stupidity of the conversation in Washington. I WANT medical care whether I can afford to pay for it or not. I WANT to make and sell prescriptions without having to be competitive in pricing. I WANT to play "god" when I process insurance claims so my company is sure to show a profit every year, every season. I WANT to keep ALL my paycheck and I don't want a single cent of MY taxes paying for someone else's health care.

Somewhere is this great vicious cycle we call self-government, someone.... maybe a BUNCH of someones, has to/have to take a hammer and start smashing the WANT syndrome. Our WANTS have to be balanced with our NEEDS and our SHOULDS.

When the public has a choice between quality and crap, they tend to go for the crap.

Not so for everyone. I must be in the minority. I routinely let my retailers know that I am insulted by the CRAP they put on the shelf in hopes I will buy. I ask them to stock with at least a little bit of quality in mind.

I routinely let my elected representatives in the world of government know that I am disappointed by the CRAP they put into action.

I routinely do my part to make sure church (at least that part where I have connection) does not serve up CRAP for theology and for service.

So what is our future if the mass conventional wisdom is: Only WANTS count.

<grin> Tomorrow we can talk about what _I_ WANT from my radio station!

 

[TheBigA]

Somewhere is this great vicious cycle we call self-government, someone.... maybe a BUNCH of someones, has to/have to take a hammer and start smashing the WANT syndrome. Our WANTS have to be balanced with our NEEDS and our SHOULDS.

Nice sentiment, but it's been my experience that if people can't get what they want by legal means, they get it illegally. Don't know if you saw the movie Pirate Radio, but that's what that was about. And the problem with elected officials is they give the people what they want because they WANT to be re-elected. They're not willing to risk that for the good of the people. So it's all insideous.

PS, when you tell me what you want from radio, keep in mind that radio doesn't serve individuals, but the majority. It's the tyranny of the majority. That's what rules the country.

 

[gr8oldies]

You've got a lot of folks who want to "give people what they need or should have" on the radio but there's the pesky little problem of the off button and the ability to change channels. Maybe those Country music listeners NEED a long newscast at 5pm but if it's offerred, "click". I know we have folks on this board who think people who might listen to, say, Rush, need, in fact should be forced, to listen to the opposite point of view, and maybe even be told how stupid they are for embracing the point of view that they do. Unfortunately, if a "fairness doctrine" host is going to either bore me or yell at me, I'm gone.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You've got a lot of folks who want to "give people what they need or should have" on the radio but there's the pesky little problem of the off button and the ability to change channels. Maybe those Country music listeners NEED a long newscast at 5pm but if it's offerred, "click".

One of the conversational habits or techniques that creates difficulty for those of us who would discuss radio is the concept of assuming that a criticism of an existing situation is a call for the exact opposite or some EXTREME alternate.

Those of us who have grown tired and exhausted from the tone and verbiage of Rush Limbaugh do not necessarily demand that some quiet, dignified bleeding liberal should be put in his place.

If one is ready to suggest that country music fans need some "mental vitamins" to augment their input, a 15-minute newscast at Five is only one of thousands of potential alternatives. If we could learn to converse about the hundreds and thousands of alternative content opportunities, we might be amazed how good some of them are, and how suicidal some of them are.

I think one of the best examples of how "giving customers what they want" can crash and burn would be Detroit and the auto industry. The original offerings from Honda, Toyota and Datsun some four decades or so back were nothing to write home about. Detroit continued it's business practice of giving the customer what he/she WANTED.

Our Japanese friends did not ignore what people WANTED but insisted on going about the business of trying to convince their customers that they really NEEDED something else.

Today there is chaos in the car business just as there is chaos in the radio business. Tell me who has ended up owning the automobile market in the U.S. today?

Actually.... both lines of business are very complicated. There are many factors that contribute to the chaos. In our conversations here on the Internet we often tend to refine the problems down to one main ingredient with a yes/no, black/white choice.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I think this idea, like the revived Fairness Doctrine and a lot of other ideas mentioned on these threads,
is quickly becoming moot. The mood of the nation and the political tides are moving now very rapidly in
the opposite direction. If the Obama Administration would try to implement any of this stuff in the current
environment it would make the hue and cry over the health care bill seem calm by comparison.