How Much of Your Tax Dollar Goes to Public Broadcasting? You're Probably Wrong!

[MattParker]

A CNN Poll in March shows most people are way off on much money goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

30% of respondents say public broadcasting gets one to five per cent of the federal budget.
40% say it's five per cent or more.
Seven percent say they think public broadcasting gets half the federal budget.

If that's what people think, no wonder some people want to end funding for public broadcasting. Well, not quite. The same poll reports that half the respondents say CPB should keep receiving the same funding (or get even more). 16 per cent want funding cut completely. That leaves 34 per cent calling for reduced funding.

The correct answer is CPB receives .00014 per cent. It provides about two per cent of NPR's budget and six to 15 per cent of the budget for public radio stations.

Of course, this leaves out the real issue of to what extent even these miniscule purse strings exert a real or perceived influence on public radio news and programming decisions. Even though federal funds make up a small part of public radio's revenue stream, the threat of losing it seems to scare the !@#$ out of stations (and station reps on the NPR board). Public radio has long been accused of backing down on certain hot topics for fear of a political backlash (and resulting funding cuts). Can public radio really be independent while taking government money - any government money?

 

[MattParker]

Update: Salon has an interesting take on this survey. If the CPB did get five percent of the federal budget, it's take would be $178 Billion (with a B). The BBC gets the equivalent of $7.5 Billion. With that much money, the CPB would have a bigger budget than every military on Earth (except our's).

What would public radio (and TV) do with $178 Billion to play with? Not counting corporate underwriting and pledges.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Part of my logic all along in this discussion is that we the taxpayers AND the public broadcasters want at least a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of Federal money going in there for the rest of eternity. Sure, public broadcasting can find some additional on-line merchandise to sell or some new fund raising technique that will raise more donations than the small amount of federal money.

What they get is a protective shield! They can turn away of lot of external power-plays by explaining to people: Oh, we get audited and we have to abide by federal regulations. We can not get involved in this Rube Goldberg political or religious scheme you are proposing. No, just because your foundation is the largest private contributor we cannot knuckle under to your political or religious demands. Our federal funding requires that we maintain something of a balanced view on issues.

The day that Federal Funding ends for public broadcasting is the day that corruption and partisanship will move toward controlling public broadcasting.

 

[MattParker]

The day that Federal Funding ends for public broadcasting is the day that corruption and partisanship will move toward controlling public broadcasting.

Sorry, GRC, I say it's the other way around. The day federal funding ends, the day the government no longer holds any bit of public radio's purse strings, is the day partisanship controlling public broadcasting ends. Big donors may try to exert influence in return for dollars but there are a lot of potential donors and there's only one government.

 

[TheBigA]

The day federal funding ends, the day the government no longer holds any bit of public radio's purse strings, is the day partisanship controlling public broadcasting ends.

Wrong. Because at the end of the day, the government still owns the frequencies they operate on. And they could use that as a threat.

And the truth is that partisanship has never had any influence on the content, regardless of who was in power.

 

[Jimmy128]

00014

sub

http://www.cjazzchannel.com/

 

[Ai4i]

We read that the per capita amount is about $1.35 per tax payer and about 170 million listeners tune in each week.
A supporter, I would rather give more than reach into the pockets of those who are not interested, unless of course that much less would go to the military.

 

[ABQRADIO]

Really, the problem is NOT the relatively small impact on taxpayers' money that is the issue, it is simply that we all have to answer to our source of income. I think we will all agree that generally, Republican politicians are opposed to government funding of "public" broadcasting, whereas Democratic politicians are generally in favor of government funding of "public" broadcasting. When you are in a government-funded broadcast station, whether radio or television, even if the government money is only a small fraction of your income, you are probably disinclined to bite the hand that feeds you. And, you will be inclined to defeat those who would cut your food supply.

It is interesting that if you bring up (to most people, anyway) the idea of a Government-funded newspaper, people are shocked! "No, no, that would be government control of the media!" Or, "That would be like Pravda!" Well, whats the difference between a government-funded newspaper and a government-funded television or radio station? I would submit, none.

 

[TheBigA]

Well, whats the difference between a government-funded newspaper and a government-funded television or radio station? I would submit, none.

You'd be surprised how much advertising the government buys in commercial radio and TV. They also buy ads in newspapers. You see all those TV ads during holiday weekends about drunk driving? It's all PAID advertising. Not PSAs. Government funding of public broadcasting was designed on purpose in a way to remove any government control from the content. The's the role CPB plays. But there is nothing that prevents the government from buying advocacy advertising promoting things like safe sex. Government media departments in various agencies also create programs and infomercials for radio and TV. Heck, if the government really wants to tell people how to think, all they have to do is buy some advertising. And they'll find a bunch of account execs ready to take their money.

One other thing: Public broadcasting gets criticized for being liberal. If it was controlled by the government, was it conservative when Republicans were in power? Or is being liberal just a recent thing?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Really, the problem is NOT the relatively small impact on taxpayers' money that is the issue, it is simply that we all have to answer to our source of income. I think we will all agree that generally, Republican politicians are opposed to government funding of "public" broadcasting, whereas Democratic politicians are generally in favor of government funding of "public" broadcasting. When you are in a government-funded broadcast station, whether radio or television, even if the government money is only a small fraction of your income, you are probably disinclined to bite the hand that feeds you. And, you will be inclined to defeat those who would cut your food supply.

It is interesting that if you bring up (to most people, anyway) the idea of a Government-funded newspaper, people are shocked! "No, no, that would be government control of the media!" Or, "That would be like Pravda!" Well, whats the difference between a government-funded newspaper and a government-funded television or radio station? I would submit, none.

We ALL make a lot of assumptions. Your post is full of assumptions that are passed around from person to person until we begin to accept some of them as TRUTH rather than assumption or personal opinion. Personal opinions are fine. I have my share. A wise person is one who recognizes the difference between established facts and personal opinion.

BigA has already pointed out some channels of government spending into media that many people are not aware of.

Until we got into the present mode in Washington where all members of a party are expected to vote as a "block" rather than exercise intelligence and wisdom in how they vote, people from both parties were friends of the idea of public broadcasting and people from both parties were not fond of the idea. It was not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. There are still represntatives and senators who defy your assumption... but their number appears to be smaller than in the past.

We who are hayseeds living in our provinces tend to have this great fear of government supported media. And yet, for over 200 years we have had government subsidy of print media via the postal system and that continues to this day. I just opened my e-mails and there is my congressman using his government expense allowances to e-mail me and ask me for a donation to help him get to know the voters of the five counties that will be new to his district in the next election. Gutsy on his part. I live in a county he is losing and my only regret is that I won't be able to vote against him next November. He is among those who first to squeal and yelp over the idea of government money going into media.... unless it is HIS media!

Sorry, I got distracted. Back to us hayseeds in the provinces. I get the idea from my friends who are move sophisticated than me, those who have lived abroad and those who travel abroad: Government owned and subsidized media is not the satan that we in this country tell ourselves it is. If you have BAD government and they own the media, you have bad media. If you have GOOD government and they own the media, you may have great media.

So the real question guys like me and you have to answer when we consider "public broadcasting" in its multiple mechanisms in this country is this: Are we against government funding for media because we don't believe in the quality and sanctity of the government we have.... or is there something else at work here?

The current mode of American thinking seems to be: Everybody is a crook except those to think exactly like I think. That is not a good seedbed to grow a great civilzation. The problem with listening to NPR is that they will expose you to people who do not think exactly like I think, who it turns out, are not crooks. And that can ruin your whole day.

 

[Joecassara]

The correct answer is CPB receives .00014 per cent. It provides about two per cent of NPR's budget and six to 15 per cent of the budget for public radio stations.

That answer neglects the tax-funded contributions of NTIA and PTFP to individual public radio stations. Second, I'd like to know where CNN got those numbers. CPB will (and has) matched up to 45% of a station's total yearly budget, which is often funneled back to NPR for either program acquisition fees, PRSS interconnect fees, or quarterly payments for programming on sister networks.

Make no mistake -- both CPB and NPR (along with its various tentacles) -- would survive if congress cut all support for public broadcasting to zero. What frightens public broadcasting professionals is the prospect of being thrown out of their comfortable fiefdoms, propped up by liberal cronies, and having to show results beyond a .2 share.

The greatest impediment to expansion and innovation in public media is having to kowtow to the whims of politicians and FCC commissioners. The sooner the system can break free from any government involvement, the sooner the PUBLIC can reclaim public radio.

These are not the ramblings of some far right wingnut or Occupy X activist; this is the insight of a public radio veteran.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The sooner the system can break free from any government involvement, the sooner the PUBLIC can reclaim public radio.

These are not the ramblings of some far right wingnut or Occupy X activist; this is the insight of a public radio veteran.

We stirred this topic quite well last year. As a bunch of "forum junkies" we were unable to convince the world that an of us had a corner on all the truth in the universe. When you read ALL the messages on this subject (there were multiple threads) I would hope you would agree that the American public has a variety of views on how "public broadcasting" should be funded.

There seems to be significant differences in the issues of Public Television funding when compared to Public Radio funding. We learned that there are trends and traditions that are constantly evolving and last year was maybe a more active year for scrutiny because our freshman class of congressmen wanted make a show of having something of a public flogging for "public broadcasting'.... what ever that might mean to any indiviudal citizen and voter.

It is typically in poor taste for members of a discussion forum to focus on each other rather than the topic, but I am going to take a chance on being in poor taste this morning. I've read every message you have ever posted on Radio-Info as joecassara. Me thinks you doth protest too loudly. Never before today have any of your contributions indicated a connection with a management or executive role in any form of public broadcasting. And as of today you seem to "gotten religion" on the subject.

Some of the protestors of any form of public funding (or should that read TAX funding?) of Public Broadcasting would make it sound like maybe 10, 23 or ever 40% of the Federal Budget goes to public broadcasting which contributes very much to whatever financial problems our government may have. Out of the discussion last year numbers were produced that indicated that maybe .00014% of the total Federal spending goes into public broadcasting. Some of our congressional friends may have spent more money (their franking expense for mailings) complaining about the cost of public broadcasting than the actual cost of public broadcasting itself. (That is a bit of rhetorical theater on my part. But it does raise an interesting question. How does the annual congressional franking allowance compare to the annual Public Broadcasting funding?)

Now many of us where just entertaining ourselves throwing around whatever numbers and theories we could cobble together. Since you are a veteran public radio participant, we all look forward to hearing some numbers and facts from you that will help us mere mortals understand the picture a bit better.

 

[TheBigA]

What frightens public broadcasting professionals is the prospect of being thrown out of their comfortable fiefdoms, propped up by liberal cronies, and having to show results beyond a .2 share.

Have you ever worked in public broadcasting? It's not as liberal or as comfortable as you indicate. Perhaps the handful of big stations like WGBH and KQED have nice facilities. But for the most part, it's pretty industrial. The key factor for these stations isn't ratings but public service. I know that sounds very quaint today, since commercial broadcasters don't serve the public any more. It's all about serving stock holders. But public broadcasters aren't motivated by ratings or profits. They're motivated by service and education. That's why so many public broadcasting stations are based at colleges and universities. It's a very different world from corporate broadcasting. It's unfortunate that we live in a world where serving the public instead of profit is seen as liberal.

The greatest impediment to expansion and innovation in public media is having to kowtow to the whims of politicians and FCC commissioners. The sooner the system can break free from any government involvement, the sooner the PUBLIC can reclaim public radio.

To be honest with you, as one who spent many years in several facets of public broadcasting, I can tell you that we never had to "kowtow to the whims of politicians." That's the job of CPB. That's why they were placed between Congress and the stations. To keep that kind of meddling out. As for the FCC, there's no way to eliminate them. They exist for all broadcasters, commercial or not.

While your last sentence seems to sound logical, it isn't practical, because the government will always be involved in broadcasting. The point of public broadcasting is to minimize the role of a handful of big corporations that now completely control broadcasting, cable, and other media. Someone has to pay for it. When you eliminate stockholders, investors, and big corporations, then it leaves the people. While membership money is the backbone of public broadcasting, the vast majority of the users don't pay. There's nothing public broadcasters can do about that. They can't put a paywall on their signal like HBO. So that's where the tax money comes in. Everyone gets assessed a small amount to keep the free, non-corporate system afloat. It's worked well for over 40 years. It's the primary system in all other democratic countries. The American people deserve an alternative to corporate controlled media. This is the only way it happens. The public CAN reclaim public broadcasting, but the only way that happens is if the public pays for it. The way they do that equally is by taxes.

 

[aaronread]

That answer neglects the tax-funded contributions of NTIA and PTFP to individual public radio stations.

Ummm...NTIA/PTFP is gone, dude. Congress killed it last year. Unfortunately, they didn't kill the 10-blankety-blank-years you have to file reports on existing grants. Grrr....

 

[aaronread]

Well, whats the difference between a government-funded newspaper and a government-funded television or radio station? I would submit, none.

Strictly speaking, you're correct. But like all things it's a matter of context. When government is the majority funder, or even the sole funder, then you have the "state broadcasting" concept that Americans seem to have a visceral reaction against. Which is odd, because I don't see people protesting Voice of America or Stars & Stripes. Of course, if more people knew what was being said in America's name in those media outlets, they might protest more, too...VOA and S&S are not known for their objectivity.

Similarly, the BBC World Service is, IIRC, majority-funded by the broadcasting tax the UK levies on TV's and radios. So they are state radio and, I have been told, it really shows when they're reporting on "domestic" issues (i.e. about the UK). I have had several British friends over the years who love the Beeb's international reporting...especially the reporting it does about the USA...but are routinely shocked at how the Beeb will conveniently ignore all sorts of inconvenient domestic stories.

National Public Radio, of course, is pretty damn far from being majority-funded by the government. More to the point: NPR member stations are among the most diversely-funded media enterprises out there. I want to call attention to that: they get money from a lot of different sources: their audience, local businesses, national businesses, the government, etc. And they're good about extracting that money via a variety of different channels to diversify their funding even more.

I think this is an under-appreciated aspect of public broadcasting, and public radio in particular. Part of the reason why they're so trusted is because people know that there's not just one class of financial support out there that ends up calling the shots. There's a little bit from a lot of groups, so it's much harder for any one group to influence the content.

Undoubtedly, this is something that drives a lot of politicians nuts...as there's nothing a politician hates more than a truly independent media outlet that can feel free to hold said politician's feet to the fire without fear of recourse.

Viewed in that light, is there any wonder why so many politicians want to eliminate "taxpayer funding" of public broadcasting? :

 

[listener-in]

Actually, there’s a long history of government support for newspapers and other printed matter in the United States, in the form of preferential mailing rates. In fact, it was a very deliberate policy going back to the founding of the republic, in order to promote an informed and educated populace not only in the cities but in every isolated community in the nation. (It’s no accident that the Constitution provided for establishment of post offices and post roads.) A vestige of this survives today in the form of media rate postage. The Post Office was for many decades the sole vehicle for mass communications available to Americans, and it’s no exaggeration to say that its role determined the entire modern history of the United States.

Note that government support did not imply the slightest control of content and there’s no fundamental reason why the same should not apply to broadcasting.

I suspect that those politicians who oppose any government funding for public broadcasting don’t do so as much for budgetary or constitutional reasons as they do because they are afraid of the wide range of opinion and information that a truly flourishing public broadcasting system would provide. They are the same kind of politicians that pretend to be suspicious of others who are well-traveled outside the United States, or – horrors – speak French, even when they themselves do so. A dumb populace is so much easier to manipulate.