The First Amendment to the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of religion, press or assembly. As government support of a state religion long ago was thought to be a violation, is government support of a state radio and/or television network any less of a violation? Just wondering.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Separation of media and state?
- Thread starter KeyTimes950
- Start date
To have this conversation at the serious level it deserves, I think we have to start with history...and in particular the 1967 legislation that created the public radio and TV system as we know it today.
The act itself can be read here: http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/ - but a full understanding of it requires some study of the broadcasting landscape as it then existed, as well as the political climate of the era, which was very different from today's.
But the short answer to your very complicated question is: yes, a "state radio and/or television network," if operated directly by the federal government, would likely raise some First Amendment issues. The idea was considered and soundly rejected at the dawn of broadcasting, making the US all but unique at the time; when the federal government did finally get into the broadcasting business via the Office of War Information during WWII, safeguards were put into place (and they remain there today) preventing those broadcasts (now under the aegis of VOA, RFE/RL and Radio Marti) from being delivered to domestic audiences.
And it was in that context that the 1967 act created a series of layers designed to prevent direct government control of the public TV and radio system that it created. That's why CPB is funded in two-year increments and funded two years out - and why any cuts that do end up getting made to CPB funding now won't take effect until 2014. And that's why the system created in 1967 was deliberately decentralized and splintered; it's much harder to exert direct government control over the 400+ CPB-qualified individual local stations and the multiple national programming services that feed them than it would be to control a US version of the CBC or BBC, where one organization controls all facets of the broadcasting system.
The act itself can be read here: http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/ - but a full understanding of it requires some study of the broadcasting landscape as it then existed, as well as the political climate of the era, which was very different from today's.
But the short answer to your very complicated question is: yes, a "state radio and/or television network," if operated directly by the federal government, would likely raise some First Amendment issues. The idea was considered and soundly rejected at the dawn of broadcasting, making the US all but unique at the time; when the federal government did finally get into the broadcasting business via the Office of War Information during WWII, safeguards were put into place (and they remain there today) preventing those broadcasts (now under the aegis of VOA, RFE/RL and Radio Marti) from being delivered to domestic audiences.
And it was in that context that the 1967 act created a series of layers designed to prevent direct government control of the public TV and radio system that it created. That's why CPB is funded in two-year increments and funded two years out - and why any cuts that do end up getting made to CPB funding now won't take effect until 2014. And that's why the system created in 1967 was deliberately decentralized and splintered; it's much harder to exert direct government control over the 400+ CPB-qualified individual local stations and the multiple national programming services that feed them than it would be to control a US version of the CBC or BBC, where one organization controls all facets of the broadcasting system.
You have the right idea but the wrong amendment.
The Tenth Amendment is the one that is supposed to prevent government from getting involved in private industry like radio or TV.
But going back to your First Amendment, the reason it doesn't prevent support of media is because the Establishment Clause applies only to the creation of a national church, nothing else. If not for that pesky 10th Amendment, it would be totally fine for government to support media.
The Tenth Amendment is the one that is supposed to prevent government from getting involved in private industry like radio or TV.
But going back to your First Amendment, the reason it doesn't prevent support of media is because the Establishment Clause applies only to the creation of a national church, nothing else. If not for that pesky 10th Amendment, it would be totally fine for government to support media.
Don C said:
Radio & TV is not a private industry because it uses the public airwaves. The government can't OWN licenses, which is why there is no NPR or PBS owned and operated station. But it can and does fund and provide program content. In fact, the government also provides content for commercial stations too, most of it for free. You know those weather forecasts you hear? Your tax dollars at work. The IRS also provides free radio Tax Tips this time of year. Lots of agencies are in the program content business.
Then of course there is the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees VOA. Guess how much their annual appropriation is: In 2010 the estimated budget for BBG was $757.5 million. Which is a mere $300 million more than CPB. Where are the demonstrations to cut their funding?
KeyTimes950 said:
A bit of serendipity. Tonight on C-span 3 there was a program featuring a historian discussing "Religious Liberty and the Founding of America". That program will not give any insight into your question about the legality of state radio and/or television. The 55-minute lecture and question-and-answer video might suggest that your language: "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of religion...." is not framed or worded with full accuracy. But that is another topic. (anyone wanting to view the program can go to this link http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Libertyin
If there had been a ground-swell of political interest in this country to radio and tv a government operation, they could have tried to reconcile with the constitution by doing what I believe some European countries did and declare electronic transmission an extension of the Post Office which I believe does find itself in the Constitution. Since the European system of government broadcasting operation had not yet matured at the time our country plunged into our concept, it may not have crossed many minds.
Just to add a little additional flavor to the constitutional interpretation aspect of your post, in the 1930's the establishment of the Rural Electric Co-operatives by the Federal Government has come in for a lot of debate through the years. Broadcasting could have easily been fashioned in that model which would leave us with your same question: would that be in keeping within Constitutional permissions and mandates.
TheBigA said:
Hey look, it's the "it's not a lot of money" argument again.
If it's not a lot of money, why is it necessary at all?
TheBigA said:
I'd support it. I don't see the need for a propaganda service anymore. It could have been justified at one time for national security reasons, but not so much anymore. Our normal broadcasting is available anywhere in the world at this point. I'd bet that watching a few seasons of Teen Mom would be enough to discourage anyone from invading us.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
There was plenty of discussion of that very concept in the 1920s, just as there were early flourishes of commercial broadcasting in Britain before the establishment of a state-run noncommercial monopoly there. That's what I was obliquely referring to in my initial contribution to this thread: there's much to be learned from the story of how we ended up with the broadcasting system we had. It didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen in a vacuum isolated from the (rather heated) politics and big business of that era...just as the birth of modern "public broadcasting" in the sixties has to be read in the context of its era, and just as the debate over CPB funding has to be read, and will be decided in, the context of the bigger political debates of our era.
(The works of historian Susan Douglas are essential to understanding the many divergent paths our broadcasting system could have taken in its earliest years.)
Here, I think, is where I diverge from Don C's view of this issue. If I'm reading you correctly, Don, you see in the tenth amendment an absolute prohibition on any federal government activity outside a strict-constructionist reading of the powers affirmatively given to Congress. That's certainly a position you're entitled to take. It is not a position universally acknowledged either by our present-day politics or by our nation's history. As BigA has observed, we've had more than 43 years now in which the constitutionality of the 1967 act could have been challenged, and no such challenge has even been made, let alone won.
Scott Fybush said:
I think you have my position pretty much down. I know it's like tilting windmills to expect the government to do only what it's supposed to do at this point, but we're at the point now where we just can't afford to squander money like it has no value. The more we do that, the closer it gets to really having no value.
As I've said more than once, the answer to this that wouldn't cost a penny is to give non-comms the tools they need to support themselves and cut off the flow of taxpayer cash. The good ones will survive, the not so good ones will fold. Just like in commercial radio. It may make a few jazz fusion and Pacifica fans upset, but them's the breaks. I like some pretty obscure music and movies as well. I don't expect government to provide them for me.
Finally, regarding the fact that no one has challenged the act that funded CPB. History is full of examples of bad ideas that weren't challenged. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure you don't need me to give any examples.
Don C said:
But the Public Broadcasting Act was NOT a bad idea. It was an idea that was needed at the time, and is needed even more now. The exact circumstances that led to the founding of public radio and TV exist today. Broadcasting now isn't any better than it was 45 years ago. Commercial programming is still aimed at lowest common denominator, and the only stations that are willing to take risks on quality programming are the non-commercial stations. Hundreds of millions of people have benefited from the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and future generations will be deprived of that opportunity.
TheBigA said:
I want CPB to go away because of statements like this. Snobs that can't support their own programming without tax dollars thinking they're better than everyone else. Nothing more annoying.
Don C said:
BS. Pure and simple. The shows can support themselves. Sesame Street is fully funded. Most of the major shows we know of on public television and radio are fully funded without tax dollars. However, the stations themselves require support. Capital expenses. Hard to fund otherwise. Especially when there is no way to enforce users to pay for what they watch. The only way is by the tax.
The snobs can support their own programming by subscribing to satellite radio or cable TV. Most snobs do. It's mostly the poor people who have to get their culture from the public airwaves. Our station was located in an inner city, in an empty storefront. I can't tell you how many unemployed people came by to volunteer, who told me they enjoyed particular shows, and couldn't pay to become members, but would be happy to put in hours of time stuffing envelopes or answering phones.
The station membership paid for daily operations and salaries. But then the boiler broke down. Or the roof started to leak. Or the bathroom overflowed. That's when a CPB grant came in handy. We also ran shows that our members didn't care for or support. The kinds of public affairs shows that commercial radio stations gave up on 30 years ago. We'd run those shows during fundraisers and the phones went silent. No pledges during the kinds of shows that serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Except no one cares.
No, it's not snobbery. These stations run better quality shows than the pablum on commercial radio and TV. Everyone knows it. You can scan through all the boards here and read what users think of commercial radio programming. For the most part, they hate it. The fact is that the situation now is no different than it was in the mid-60s. Commercial TV had become a "vast wasteland," to quote an FCC commissioner. Radio wasn't a whole lot better. But public radio and TV came along and provided programming that wasn't focused on ratings or profits. And there was an audience for it. A very big audience. Unfortunately, not a lot of money. The snobbery isn't from those who create quality programming aimed at higher standards than reality TV or Justin Bieber. It's from the 21st Century Marie Antionettes, who refuse to accept that a lot of poor people like classical music or Charles Dickens.
TheBigA said:
Then they don't need money. Case closed.
TheBigA said:
Which is why you get rid of the antiquated fundraising restrictions. Then if the viewers/listeners don't pony up, it's their own fault when they can't listen to their favorite shows.
Don C said:
As a long time student of how various charitable organizations, political organizations, religious organization and fraternal organizations are shaped by their fund raising mechanisms, and how the fund raising mechanism shapes the function of the organization, it is difficult to say what would result from your suggestion that getting rid of the "antiquated fund raising restrictions" would do to public broadcasting.
They say that the oyster needs that grain of sand or some irritant, some abnormality in order to get on about the business of making a beautiful pearl, public broadcasting without the restrictions would develop some kind of cancer-growth that would kill it. "The valid discussion for us might be: What are the healthy changes that might be made in fund raising techniques and philosophy?" Would they all come at once, or would be stair-step them in over a period of time? Is being the "caged animal" of a not-for-profit corporation an essential ingredient for the beast to thrive and survive, or would "I can earn a profit" motivation be an improvement to the genre?
- Status