wadio said:
Their decisions are affected, consciously or unconsciously by the sources that fund their paychecks. That's not an indictment, it's just how it is.
Originally, the public broadcasting system was funding mainly by government money. That was to keep ratings and commercial interests out of the mix. Then Reagan came in and cut the budget in half. That's what led to the current situation. Every time they give up government money, they become more and more like commercial broadcasters. That means they get all the advantages plus they don't pay taxes, and corporate grants become tax deductions. That puts commercial stations at a disadvantage. CBS would prefer that it's WBZ was the ONLY news station in Boston. Hubbard would prefer that WTOP didn't have to compete with WAMU in Washington. But that's not the case. When you remove government funding from public broadcasters, it distracts them from their original mission of serving the public, and places them more in competition with commercial operators.
And there are lots of other examples of this, taking the FCC from an agency that served the public into an agency that sells spectrum space to commercial operators. How did that help the people? The FCC no longer regulates broadcasters because it costs too much. They don't have engineers on staff, just lawyers. When we turn the government into a for-profit organization, rather than one that serves the people, it becomes corrupted by money. That's the direction we've been moving in since Reagan. It's more expensive the other way. But look what we the people give up. Everyone's all for making government cheaper, but we don't see all that we lose.
My point is the small amount of government money the public broadcasters still receive is the one thing that keeps them on mission, and keeps them from advertising candy and toys during Sesame Street. That's what this is about. Keeping the wolf out of the hen house. Or else there is no public service, there is no culture, there is no art, there is no education, and everything is aimed at the lowest common denominator, as we already have in commercial broadcasting. As I've been saying throughout this thread, if you believe that Clear Channel and Cumulus are doing a great job in running radio, then you're right that public broadcasting should become more like them. But if you believe we need and deserve an alternative to another ten hits in a row, to radio stations with no news departments and no local staffs, then the money has to come from someone other than advertisers and corporations, and the only other place is the government.
