Is Freedom of the Press an Issue in the NPR Funding question?

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The Constitution of the United States speaks to the issue we phrase as "Freedom of the Press".

We who are a part of broadcasting, used to be part of broadcasting, and those who are fans of broadcasting have long held to the idea that Freedom of the Press extends beyond just printed material and that government should NOT be telling broadcasters what news information they can and cannot carry as news and information.

Are we watching as some try to pin a PRICE TAG on Freedom of the Press?

The recent effort to reduce the national budget did NOT apparently propose to stop funding public broadcasting. It did propose to stop any federal funds from flowing through public broadcasting outlets on it's way to NPR.

What ever happened to the idea that government cannot dictate the programming of a broadcast station? What next? A law requiring the FCC to fine my station or pull my license because I carry news from Reuters News Service? A law forbidding my station from incorporating news releases into newscast that were issued by a church denomination that provides shelter for immigrants, or abortion counseling? A law forbidding my station from receiving Federal funds if I accept PSA copy from people who favor gun control?

Is Freedom of the Press an Issue in the NPR Funding Question?

Do we have congressmen who would Freedom of the Press over about the amount of money it takes to build half a mile (or less) of Interstate Highway?

 

[w9wi]

Disclaimer +/-: I'm a supporter of public radio, including with cash and volunteer time.

I do believe the intent of many (but not all) of those who called for the defunding of NPR was to punish the network for not following the conservative line adhered to by the commercial stations.

However, I also believe that from a Constitutional standpoint, Congress certainly has the right to defund NPR if they so decide. Legislation defunding NPR "unless you put more Republicans on the air" or "unless you stop letting union leaders criticize Gov. Walker on the air" would probably be a problem. Legislation defunding it in a content-neutral manner -- "unless tax revenues increase 2%", "unless Medicaid expenses drop 1%" would be hard to argue with on Constitutional grounds.

Personally, I think NPR should in fact be taken out of the general fund. It should be funded by a tax on the profits of commercial stations. After all, they profit from not being required to present minority viewpoints and from being allowed to air huge amounts of misleading political advertising. Certainly they can help pay for the public radio their actions makes necessary.

(OK, how quickly will this thread get diverted to TIO? )

That's a personal opinion. No, I'm not naive enough to believe it would stand a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted. Heck, I don't think it would stand a snowball's chance with the Democrats controlling both Houses.

 

[TheBigA]

I think my opinions on this issue are pretty well known, but there are two simple points I'd like to make:

1) There is a law on the books currently called the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which was revised in 1983. The recent proposal for defunding attempts to curcumvent the law by simply defunding the organization. But the structure of CPB, which is in the law and 100% government funded, would be forced to exist without money. What needs to be done is to have a serious discussion about the future of public broadcasting, in which all parties testify before Congress to address a complete rewrite of the Act. That's what really needs to be done, in order to address ideas such as loosening rules for on-air fundraising, and what should be done with CPB. The Republicans apparently don't want to do that. They just want to defund.

2) The bigger picture, which your post addresses, is the role of a free press in a democracy. That is a serious subject that deserves serious discussion, and a proposal has been made by two journalists: Bob McChesney and John Nichols, in their new book: "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again." They point out that real journalism is threatened by the decline of traditional media like newspapers and on-air broadcasting. For years, they funded in depth journalism with advertising. Now, with the growth of new media, advertising has been diluted and traditional media sources are not investing as much in unbiased journalism. What the authors suggest is a government journalism subsidy. Obviously that idea won't get very far in the current climate. But their book makes an interesting case and is worth reading for those who are really interested in the subject of journalism and the Constitution.

 

[listener-in]

The bigger picture..... is the role of a free press in a democracy. That is a serious subject that deserves serious discussion, and a proposal has been made by two journalists: Bob McChesney and John Nichols, in their new book: "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again." They point out that real journalism is threatened by the decline of traditional media like newspapers and on-air broadcasting. For years, they funded in depth journalism with advertising. Now, with the growth of new media, advertising has been diluted and traditional media sources are not investing as much in unbiased journalism.

The “free press in a democracy” that you refer to is, I believe, more threatened than many people understand. Right now, more and more channels of mass communication are providing Americans with less and less hard news and an ever-smaller range of opinion journalism; the only exceptions are public broadcasting (particularly public radio) and the internet. Both public broadcasting and net neutrality are under threat from the political right, which if successful will undoubtedly impose practical – as opposed to mandatory – limits on free speech.

What the authors suggest is a government journalism subsidy. Obviously that idea won't get very far in the current climate. But their book makes an interesting case and is worth reading for those who are really interested in the subject of journalism and the Constitution.

There's a precedent for this. As I've pointed out in other threads, for a long time the US Post Office was our only mass communications medium. It was no accident that from the beginning of the Post Office, the government made it a deliberate policy to subsidize, big-time, the postage on printed matter.

The subsidy helped authors and publishers distribute their literature affordably anywhere in America. Before even the public schools, the postal subsidy helped Americans, rich or poor, in cities and isolated communities, affordably inform, educate and entertain themselves, laying the foundations for the literate nation we became. Neither the Post Office, nor politicians, nor Americans at large, made it their business to stick their nose into the political or religious content of the literature that was sent through the mail.

 

[TheBigA]

There's a precedent for this. As I've pointed out in other threads, for a long time the US Post Office was our only mass communications medium.

The book I refer to mentioned that Benjamin Franklin, a publisher, himself benefited from this subsidy.

 

[listener-in]

The bigger picture, which your post addresses, is the role of a free press in a democracy. That is a serious subject that deserves serious discussion, and a proposal has been made by two journalists: Bob McChesney and John Nichols, in their new book: "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again." They point out that real journalism is threatened by the decline of traditional media like newspapers and on-air broadcasting. For years, they funded in depth journalism with advertising. Now, with the growth of new media, advertising has been diluted and traditional media sources are not investing as much in unbiased journalism. What the authors suggest is a government journalism subsidy. Obviously that idea won't get very far in the current climate. But their book makes an interesting case and is worth reading for those who are really interested in the subject of journalism and the Constitution.

Well, you piqued my interest in the book and I checked it out of the library - a very interesting read. The main point I got out of it is that the current model of commercial journalism, while it "worked" in our recent history, is not to be considered the automatic norm because that's all we are familiar with. In much of our history - not that of some foreign socialist-marxist-communist entity - government subsidy was a perfectly successful and accepted model for a free and competitive press.

The other powerful idea is that freedom of the press doesn't mean all that much if the only freedom we're talking about is the freedom of publishers to publish; and there are enormous economic barriers in the way of anyone who wants to break into the media, whether with the second (or, increasingly, even the first) newspaper in a town, or a new TV channel. True freedom of the press requires that a wide variety of news and opinion be available to the consumer. News gathering has always been costly and it will remain so regardless of whether news is published on paper or electronically. It's not surprising that bean-counters in the commercial media have cut news gathering to the bone, but a good flow of real news remains essential to any democratic society. So how do we do it, if not by returning to earlier government-subsidized models?

 

[TheBigA]

So how do we do it, if not by returning to earlier government-subsidized models?

It depends. There are those who question whether it's in the government's interest to actually have an informed electorate. It would be far better to keep them stupid. Tell them what you want them to know. Have the argue about unimportant issues, while the real ones are ignored. So would you then trust the government to decide which journalists get the subsidy?

 

[recto101]

NPR does not Knee Jerk like Fox, CNN and MSNBC does. I think it has to do with the fact that NPR
and Pacifica are more likely to do detialed reporting than the commercial networks.

 

[listener-in]

Here's an apparent example of how commercial talk radio constrains freedom of the press. It appears that a host on WMBS (Uniontown PA) was asked to leave after having a guest who opposed hydrofracking to extract natural gas; the station has by coincidence added to its schedule a show called "Natural Gas Matters".

http://fybush.com/nerw.html for June 6, 2011.

I guess that answers the question asked in the title of this thread. Yes, it is an issue. Given especially the concentration of ownership and limited competition in commercial radio, if we were to stop funding NPR and radio were abandoned to the commercial sector we would lose more of our press freedom. The commercial folks don't take kindly to airing views that differ from "the party line".

 

[musichead1029]

Both public broadcasting and net neutrality are under threat from the political right, which if successful will undoubtedly impose practical – as opposed to mandatory – limits on free speech.

Eliminating mandatory taxpayer funding of public broadcasting does not threaten free speech. The concept of free speech does not include the guarantee of a funded transmission facility.

As I understand it, adherents of so-called 'net neutrality' apparently fear the free market private sector provision of the servers and infrastructure that power the internet more than government regulation. I'm not sure where this notion comes from. Currently, anyone can connect a server to the net and offer service on their own terms, but once the government institutes regulations on the net, we are all forced to comply with them, good or bad. What could possibly be 'neutral' about that? And what's the need? People don't need the government's restrictions to go out and pick the ISP that suits them best. Government restrictions will only narrow the playing field, and that certainly won't foster neutrality.

 

[TheBigA]

Eliminating mandatory taxpayer funding of public broadcasting does not threaten free speech. The concept of free speech does not include the guarantee of a funded transmission facility.

It depends. In 1789, the "funded transmission facility" was a town square and a soap box. Now it's some form of electronic facility.

The airwaves are licensed by the federal government. The licensing and regulating of the airwaves are not much different than funding actual facilities and personnel, as long as the federal government doesn't actually OWN the facility. And in no case do it own the facility. The states on the other hand own licenses and facilities, and they have every right to do so.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Eliminating mandatory taxpayer funding of public broadcasting does not threaten free speech. The concept of free speech does not include the guarantee of a funded transmission facility.

The field is not quite as level, not quite as black and white as you have just pictured it. I agree with you that free speech does not include the guarantee of a funded transmisstion facility. If the people of this nation feel that the dream of "public broadcasting" has received as much jump-start-money as we ever intended to give them, then congress should step up, count the votes and come up with a plan to stop ALL THE FUNDING. There would be the messy detail of: Do we cut them all off, cold-turkey, right-up-front, or do we gradually reduce the funding over a 5 or 10 year period until it reaches zero.

BUT... that is NOT the way the NPR question was handled. There was nothing in the law passed in the House last fall that cut any funding to Public Television. There was nothing in the law passed in the House last fall that cut any funding to public radio stations. Though it was proclaimed to be a issue necessary to bring the budget in balance, there was no cut in funding. Just a mandate that public radio station COULD NOT use any of that money to pay dues/program costs to NPR.

In the end, it was a blatant move toward censorship. Program what pleases Republicans and we won't touch your funding. Program (or fire people) that displeases Republicans and we will KILL YOUR FUNDING.

If that is not censorship, what is?

As I understand it, adherents of so-called 'net neutrality' apparently fear the free market private sector provision of the servers and infrastructure that power the internet more than government regulation. I'm not sure where this notion comes from. Currently, anyone can connect a server to the net and offer service on their own terms, but once the government institutes regulations on the net, we are all forced to comply with them, good or bad. What could possibly be 'neutral' about that? And what's the need? People don't need the government's restrictions to go out and pick the ISP that suits them best. Government restrictions will only narrow the playing field, and that certainly won't foster neutrality.

I think many of us are more fearful of CORPORATE ability to regulate what constitutes acceptable bits-and-bytes that flow through the Internet than we are fearful of what government may do.

My computer died last week. I bought a new one and this week I have been loading my collection of programs. I am very acutely aware that Microsoft and Adobe are so aggressive about protecting their turf that their programs are like little kids in the back seat of the car slapping each other up side the head when they think daddy isn't looking.

We hear the reports that some cable providers "throttle" your data flow if they find you streaming or downloading content that they feel you should have purchased from them rather than a third party vendor. My ISP who provides me with POP e-mail services refuses to support my software for dealing with e-mail. I don't want them to support the software. I just want them to tell me what port numbers are used for download or upload of e-mail. They won't answer the question until I tell them what software I am using.. and if I tell them what I am using, they hang up on me.

If a government bureaucrat does that to me, I call my Congressman... and write biting letters to the editor during the next election cycle. When AT&T joined at the his with Yahoo does that, who do you call? I can see me travelling halfway across the country for the annual stockholders meeting and right in the middle of things, stepping to the mic as demanding: "Why can't I get a port number for my e-mail???"

This whole discussion is not about something as pristine and orderly as a well marked football field on game day for homecoming.

Many of the issues we discuss when we argue about free enterprise and government actions play on a field that looks more like that farm my Dad owned in the Ozarks. A ravine here. A waterfall there. A meadow up there on the hill if you can find a way to get past the water moccasins in the creek, and juicy wild blackberries on the far side of that pasture... if you think you can get past the big Brahma bull between here and there. And right beside the house would have been a great place for a garden... if it weren't for all that clay and shale related to the coal that may be down there 50 or 100 feet deep. Government vs. Free Enterprise is not an either-or question. You get the whole farm that has elements of both, and you come up with a business plan that makes use of both, appropriately.

 

[TheBigA]

If the people of this nation feel that the dream of "public broadcasting" has received as much jump-start-money as we ever intended to give them, then congress should step up, count the votes and come up with a plan to stop ALL THE FUNDING.

Stopping the funding doesn't eliminate the law. If the people of this nation feel they're done with public broadcasting, then it's time for Congress to hold hearings on the Public Broadcasting Act, and discuss the overall issue of public ownership of the airwaves. Because truthfully, if we really just want to make broadcasting private, we should shut down the FCC along with CPB. This is a big discussion, and has been addressed in topics in the FCC section of this board. But simply defunding NPR or any other part of CPB doesn't change the fact that there is a law on the books that sets up a system of public broadcasting, with certain guarantees of funding that have never been challenged as being Unconstitutional.

 

[bturner]

Early on there was the mention commercial stations should pay a tax to support Public radio. I must say you are not well informed on commercial radio. We get to pay an annual spectrum usage tax. Public Radio is exempt as far as I know. Both commercial and public radio have their burdens and their advantages. The number of commercial and non-commercial stations laughing all the way to the bank are few.

I've read the arguements over programming 'choices' of stations (how freedom of speech does not apply to commercial talk radio, for example). The reality is everyone (commercial, non-commercial, religious, etc.) has a format, commonly mistaken for 'agenda'. Stations have formats. They stick to them because the audience expects that. As hard as this is to swallow, everything revolves around popularity on the air. If you're popular (insert 'liked by the audience'), you bring in support for that non-commercial station, produce ratings that sell commercials on commercial stations and generate contributions of religious stations. To be popular you need to be what you are all the time on the air because people generally don't like change.

Radio, regardless of flavor, has its advantages and disadvantages and all have their own style they must stick with to keep their audience. It would be unfair to require any 'flavor' of radio to foot the bill for another 'flavor' of radio.

I contend NPR is now in a position, as a programming service, to support itself. I think NPR is over the 'hump' and no longer 'the feed me money or I'll die' entity it may have been in earlier years. If anything, that is a compliment. The real stickler to me is the fact some Public Radio dollars go to help the smallest stations provide service to underserved area. I don't have to 'like' or 'dislike' the programming to see some radio service beats none or less radio service.

We can always find something frustrating or wrong with radio and indeed I could write a book. As my first boss in radio told me when I complained about something that did not get done, he said to 'bring me solutions, not problems'. Possibly our complaints and frustrations are being heard. I find that in radio the wheels roll slowly and just when you give up hope, a small milestone is won.

 

[amfmxm]

Sorry I'm so late to this discussion. As is often the case, I concur with Big A on this subject--the law is a separate issue from funding. But I do have one specific thought to chip in.

Most of my career has been in commercial radio and TV, but I did invest about 10 years in public radio and TV, on both the national and local levels--as a national AE, local management, and on boards in both TV and radio. I am still fortunate to have many friends in public media.

Since I approached public media from the perspective of someone with many years in commercial media under my belt, I made it a priority (like Big A, I presume) to become intimately familiar with the specifics of laws, rules and regs governing public radio and TV--and since underwriting was my particular focus, the limitations of corporate support and the subtleties therein. One of my earliest mentors was a leader of the "commercial experiment" back in the late 70s/early 80s.

In short, I have always felt that public media in the U.S. has never even come close to the limits proscribed by the laws/rules/regs, instead choosing to be overly self-restrictive. In other words, they have always left tons of money on the table--money that has always been available without even coming close to nudging legal barriers. I have often thought that most of the people involved would rather starve than be perceived as "selling."

A couple weeks ago I noted that one of my former public radio-TV outfits had slashed dozens of employees. So unnecessary...