For some time now, I've observed tye debates and discussions on this board regarding public broadcasting, but hardly ever participated in them. Now, I'd like to add my voice to this topic. I know some of what I am about to say might offend or outrage certain posters on this board. I apologize in advance.
It is my opinion that eliminating government funding for public television and radio would negatively impact both mediums. This concern is a legitimate one.
If and when government funding is eliminated, stations will be forced to either come up with new funding sources, or find ways to do without. Either way, I think it's obvious that the areas that will be impacted the most are radio and television programming.
For many, the obvious solution would be to simply allow non-commercial broadcasters to start running conventional ads, and make them fight for the same dollars the commercial broadcasting companies in the market have been fighting over for decades. If indeed "public" broadcasters are forced to turn to commercialism to stay afloat, they will certainly need to ensure that their programming will attract a mass audience. As a result, I fear the superior news and talk programming that we've all come to expect from these stations would need to be toned down so as to be able to compete with their commercial rivals. Further, you can forget about arts and cultural programming in most cases. Commercial radio has more or less given up on such formats as Classical and Jazz. Public radio has proven to be the last oasis for these formats in most markets. (Granted, public stations, too, are seemingly giving up on these formats. Could it be that station managers are seeing the writing on the wall and preparing for this kind of scenario?) If these formats cannot be "sold" commercially, surely they'll have to go. Where then are we to turn if we want to hear alternative viewpoints, or to broaden our horizons with music that commercial radio could care less about? Just because it cannot be "sold", does not mean it doesn't have the right to be seen or heard on the public airwaves. Public broadcasting, the world over, has ensured that said programming has a place that is free from corporate influence.
I have no problem whatsoever with tax dollars going toward the preservation of such a valuable institution as public broadcasting. In fact, I look at the state-owned public broadcasters abroad, many of which have programming that is far superior to much of what is available on public radio and television stateside, and I often wonder if the quality of OUR programming could be improved by increasing, or, at the very least, maintaining the current level of funding. After all, if our government can afford to fund propaganda machines like VOA, Radio Marti, and Radio Free Asia, there is no reason they cannot help to ensure that there will always be a place on the domestic radio and TV dial for cultural, educational, and informative programming that won't necessarily be cancelled due to lack of ad revenue or poor ratings.
America's model for public broadcasting is by no means perfect. But forcing public broadcasters in a more commercial direction is not the solution.
