Why Should Tax /Government Dollars go to Public Broadcasting anyway?

[bturner]

The latest stir has brought this issue to mind again. Why should any dollars from government/taxes go to support radio and TV?

I see the creation of Public TV and Radio as a much needed improvement in quality of life at its inception. It was a great idea but it really isn't as much of an issue now, is it?

Some argue most of the dollars go to the production of programming and not the 'so called' network (aka NPR/PBS) and I do know most of the State organizations really try to help the smallest stations stay afloat, but would the private section pony up if those millions from the government went away?

In lieu of making statements as to where those dollars go, let me take a quick left turn. Why are those 'government' dollars only available via the structure of NPR/PBS and their colse-knit entities? What about the other non-commercial, educational broadcasters who are trying to serve their communities involved in this sharing? Have you ever heard of these dollars going to stations that are not affiliated with NPR and PBS in any way? Yes, I know school districts run stations and they're funded through tax dollars but these dollars are from local sources in almost every case (it's not that easy to get the state to kick in and considering the tiny percentage of school budgets that come from the Federal side would likely be pretty strictly earmarked).

If we are going to fund development of programming and a national radio and television network with tax dollars, then why shouldn't every non-commercial radio and TV licensee be permitted to get a piece of the action? Sure, I'd demand the money go to stations that must have it to survive after they prove that is the case.

And yes! I would let 'Religioius' stations in on it.

For those who truly understand separation of Church and State understand that this means the Government cannot support a specific religion. Ever heard of the Church of England? It's the government ordained religion of the UK. Not long ago, not being a member of the Church of England meant you were not considered Christian but you were considered an Enemy of the State. Ever heard of Quakers? They got there name by a follower 'quaking' in the courtroom being brought up on charges of practicing a different religion. The Apostolic Lutherans of Finland didn't for a church in the mid-1800s because the Evengelical Lutheran Church was the official government sanctioned religion (same for Germany, Sweden, etc.). So, a radio station with a format of practicing their chosen religion over the airwaves is not a violation of church and state if they received some of that funding.

For the record, I dislike the dog and pony show give until your rock doesn't bleed anymore religion. Most of the sincere ministries think those guys give them a bad name too and most of these ministries are small, funded mostly through the ministry leaders wallet and are the sort of folks who are not 'in your face', so to speak. Trust me, with years of selling Christian radio I've seen a good cross section.

Another consideration: the NPR affiliate I know does somewhere around $8,000,000 a year.

In summary: If Government monies are to go to radio and TV, why is it restricted to the NPR/PBS club? Is that constitutional?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Public stations get most of their money from other sources. Maybe it is time to cut off the taxpayer dollars. Most of the stations are well enough run that they'd survive the cut.

 

[MattParker]

The whole concept of commercial and non-commercial stations is meaningless.

Public radio stations get most of their money from commercial sponsors (corporate underwriters). The spots get longer and include an outright pitch, stopping just short of calls to action and making comparisons. To call public radio "non-commercial" is blatant hypocrisy. Public radio stations, at least most of them, are doing very well financially. High executive salaries. State of the art facilities. Prime real estate. Enough money left over to start for-profit subsidiaries. Plus they are completely closed and undemocratic operations. If I buy stock in CBS and Clear Channel, I can go to shareholder meetings and see financial reports. I can stand up at shareholder meetings and demand answers from management. If I contribute to public radio, I get nothing and I get no say.

Maybe public radio needed government seed money in 1968. No more. But public radio stations are addicted to CPB welfare payments and don't want to give it up.

But that last thing I want is for preachers to get government money to run their radio stations. Radio-evangelists have a sweet racket going. They fleece the suckers; don't let them get tax dollars from the rest of us, too. Churches should be paying taxes, not taking in tax money. Neither should tax money go to so-called educational stations, actually toys for students. They serve no educational purpose. Neither do they in any way serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.

 

[bturner]

Good comments Matt even thought I would have very minor issues with a couple of details in your post. I am however, solid as a rock behind your words.

There is no reason for government dollars going to any radio or TV station, network, news department or production facility.

If we must have such a fund, maybe it should go to places like KTNA in Talkeetna, Alaska that is the only voice for about 1500 people in America's last frontier of Alaska. The locals send messages via the station, for example, making it almost like a telephone party line. The local area cannot provide the funds they need to operate (and their staff is mostly volunteer or way under a living wage).

I think there are enough foundations and non-profits that would direct monies in the form of grants to make up for the government's support.

And yes, most non-commercial educational radio is funded by both underwriting announcements and grants, not listener donations.

A bit of info: underwriting announcements are very restrictive and quite undefined, intentionally. Statements of fact are okay but sometimes they're not okay. For example, say a plumbing company has been family owned and serving the community since 1962 might get you fined because the FCC can say "serving the community since 1962" implies they are 'more experienced or better' than other plumbers serving the community. Even so, the text is clearly factual and within the rules. Some are so 'gun shy' over copy for underwriting announcements they have an attorney look it over.

Did you know the FCC issues a 'cautionary' statement (without mandating it as a rule) that underwriter announcements exceeding 30 seconds (75-90 words total) are more likely to violate FCC rules and airing more than 6 underwriting announcements an hour may be viewed as 'too much' or sounding too much like a commercial station. I suspect they would view this '6 per hour' over a 24 hour or weeklong period versus hourly (ie: running 12 per hour 6am to 6pm M-F only might be okay...averaging 6 an hour over 24 hours; less over a 168 hour period).

 

[aaronread]

Once again: NPR DOES NOT GET ANY FEDERAL FUNDING.

Public radio stations get most of their money from commercial sponsors (corporate underwriters).

False. Most public radio stations get over 50% of their total funding from either listener donations or direct support from a parent institution (i.e. a college or university). On average, corporate support usually floats around 25 to 40%. Obviously this varies a lot from station to station, but it's exceedingly rare for a public radio station to get the majority of their funding from corporate underwriting. To the point where I'm not aware of anyone who manages that, and I've examined a lot of stations in a lot of markets to try and emulate their successes (and avoid their failures) at my own station.

If I buy stock in CBS and Clear Channel, I can go to shareholder meetings and see financial reports. I can stand up at shareholder meetings and demand answers from management.

And good luck with that. Seriously, I would very much like to know how well that actually works.

If I contribute to public radio, I get nothing and I get no say.

Well, like all non-profits, public radio stations have to file information with the IRS. A Form 990 can tell you all sorts of interesting things. (granted this doesn't always work if the station is owned by a parent college) And all CPB-funded stations are required to have a community advisory board that you can request to be on, and stations are strongly encouraged to have regular meetings with the public, too, that you could attend. I'd say that's a lot more public accountability than you'll ever get at a commercial station.

There is no reason for government dollars going to any radio or TV station, network, news department or production facility.

If you consider dodging your taxes to be taking government dollars, which I would, then I would argue that this statement has to apply to quite a few commercial broadcast outlets, too.

Although to be honest, I could be persuaded to accept a loss of all direct federal funding for non-commercial stations. However, it would have to be balanced by removing the underwriting restrictions so that non-comm's could compete fairly with other stations for advertiser dollars.

I think there are enough foundations and non-profits that would direct monies in the form of grants to make up for the government's support.

You would be incorrect. Study how grantmaking works in this country...not just in radio, but across the board...and you'll quickly see why government funding is so important.

 

[bturner]

I know many non-college owned stations that get most of their funding from Underwriters. Your statement may be correct from a College/University point, but may not apply to many non-comms. A college owned FM I know is a profit center for their school of higher education.

Needs are always filled. Remove government dollars and other entities will prevent the recipients from going without. There's always an executive type looking for a new 'cause' he/she can champion and operate. Admittedly, in the current economic situation, this could be a tough one to pull off...perhaps weaning the govenment dollars off over several years would be the best approach. Cold turkey is never fun.

I fully agree. If you remove funding for all radio and TV, let them sell advertising. People who say they hate commercial radio tend to not complain too loudly about underwriting announcements. Is it not the abrupt change in programming that most are opposed to? After all, underwriting is much more low key and non-disruptive to the flow of programming. One never hears underwriting announcements played 8 in a row or the negative jargon telling listeners they'll head 10 in a row before they must endure a string of commercials. Commercial radio tends to make their source of funding a negative to listeners with little attention paid to making it a part of their format. Non-commercial radio tries to seemlessly involve the announcement within the programming, never making it a negative to the listener. I doubt this philosophy would change if non-comms were allowed to air commercials since the audience would demand it. Just think back to the old Beautiful Music and Classical Music commercial stations. They always had commercial load limits and reserved the right to make the content of any commercial compatiable to their format. It was what the audience wanted, so they got it.

 

[MattParker]

Aaron: Yes, many public radio stations are operated by colleges and universities and they include some fine operations. As part of an educational institution, their financial situation is different than those public radio stations operated by an independent foundation or non-profit corporation. These are among the leading (in terms of audience size and influence) public radio stations in the country and include the WNYC group, WHYY-FM, WGBH, WBEZ, KQED and Minnesota Public Radio (among others). I thinking mainly of this type of public radio station in my earlier post. Sorry for not being more clear.

Even so, some university-owned stations are expected to show black ink. WXPN, for example, operates a restaurant, performance venue and concert business "on the side." KPCC turned over operation of its station to Minnesota Public Radio. Both run substantial schedules of spots - I mean "enhanced underwriting announcements."

In any case, the figures I have seen show that corporate underwriting is the largest source of revenue for public radio. Not pledges. Not CPB money. Yes, there are also grants to public radio stations but often those come from some "special interest group" buying news coverage which promotes its own agenda. Offhand, I've heard health coverage produced with a grant from a pharmaceutical trade group, financial coverage produced with a grant from a trust and investment bank, and mental health coverage produced with grant from a hospital dedicated to psychiatric care. Even NPR itself is not immune, with health and medical news produced with a grant from a foundation funded by a large HMO. What's the difference between public radio news grants and underwriting spots? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

[bturner]

Aaronreed says NPR gets no federal funding but the link clearly states:

So while federal dollars do flow to NPR, the connection is indirect. It may be a fine point, but it’s an important distinction. The federal government can’t “defund” NPR. What Congress can do is cut CPB funding — which has diminished over the years and has, at times, been threatened.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Aaronreed says NPR gets no federal funding but the link clearly states:

So while federal dollars do flow to NPR, the connection is indirect. It may be a fine point, but it’s an important distinction. The federal government can’t “defund” NPR. What Congress can do is cut CPB funding — which has diminished over the years and has, at times, been threatened.

A friend of mine from my high school days, Vince Duffy, is news director for Michigan Radio. He provided some insights which should prove valuable here on his Facebook page:

"One cup of coffee a year (about $1.30) of your tax dollars goes to the CPB. Of that, about $1 goes to some public television station somewhere and 30 cents goes to a public radio station somewhere...in much the same way your tax dollars support Home Depot. You see when you send taxes to Congress, some of that money goes to the department of transportation, who sends some of that to the Alaska Dept. of Transportation. They might spend that money to build a new road, and hire a contractor to do the work. An employee of that construction company may take part of his paycheck and use it to buy a new hammer at Home Depot...and viola, your tax dollars are supporting Home Depot."

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Some people don't want to buy a $1.30 cup of coffee from a place that has an agenda, so why would they approve of giving that $1.30 to the CPB?

And to try to claim that NPR doesn't receive tax dollars because they go through the CPB is disingenuous at best. If NPR wants to operate in the way that they are showing themselves to lately, it's time for them to get that extra 10% from some other place. The CPB appears to have outlived its usefulness.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Some people don't want to buy a $1.30 cup of coffee from a place that has an agenda, so why would they approve of giving that $1.30 to the CPB?

And to try to claim that NPR doesn't receive tax dollars because they go through the CPB is disingenuous at best. If NPR wants to operate in the way that they are showing themselves to lately, it's time for them to get that extra 10% from some other place. The CPB appears to have outlived its usefulness.

Vince will be happy to refund your $1.30, Don.

 

[bturner]

The cup of coffee description sounds okay but it doesn'ty work out. On the other end of things, that drug supplier that crosses the river to Texas might grab a cup of coffee for $1.30 at a convenience store and a portion of that goes to the coffee grower that buys a new hammer at Home Depot.

Everyone contributes somehow to our economy.

My real point is why must I be a stockholder, in essence, in CPB/PBS/NPR? I think I have a $1.30 share of stock.

 

[Silkie]

Some people don't want to buy a $1.30 cup of coffee from a place that has an agenda, so why would they approve of giving that $1.30 to the CPB?

And to try to claim that NPR doesn't receive tax dollars because they go through the CPB is disingenuous at best. If NPR wants to operate in the way that they are showing themselves to lately, it's time for them to get that extra 10% from some other place. The CPB appears to have outlived its usefulness.

Since it is "only" $1.30, why not put a box on our tax returns asking if we want that $1.30 to go to the Corporation (why call it a corporation?) for Public Broadcasting. They can put it right under the box for $1.00 that we opt in or out for Presidential elections?

 

[bturner]

What a heck of an idea. To make up for those who might not check the box, perhaps allowing up to $10 would be good. That sounds like a great solution. That's just the sort of thinking we need much more of.

 

[Silkie]

No. The amount is $1.30 (just like a cup of coffee) on your tax return. Up to $10 opens the door for a tax increase by $8.70. If enough people don't check the box they don't get funded. It's a very simple plan.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

What a heck of an idea. To make up for those who might not check the box, perhaps allowing up to $10 would be good. That sounds like a great solution. That's just the sort of thinking we need much more of.

Maybe it's time to have boxes to check for every program.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Aaronreed says NPR gets no federal funding but the link clearly states:

So while federal dollars do flow to NPR, the connection is indirect. It may be a fine point, but it’s an important distinction. The federal government can’t “defund” NPR. What Congress can do is cut CPB funding — which has diminished over the years and has, at times, been threatened.

So the Feds launder the money they give NPR. If a criminal launders his money to cover the tracks, does that really change any fundamental reality? So why should it change reality if the money that the government gives NPR is laundered?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Aaronreed says NPR gets no federal funding but the link clearly states:

So while federal dollars do flow to NPR, the connection is indirect. It may be a fine point, but it’s an important distinction. The federal government can’t “defund” NPR. What Congress can do is cut CPB funding — which has diminished over the years and has, at times, been threatened.

So the Feds launder the money they give NPR. If a criminal launders his money to cover the tracks, does that really change any fundamental reality? So why should it change reality if the money that the government gives NPR is laundered?

Like the money the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets from foreign companies. Same difference.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Aaronreed says NPR gets no federal funding but the link clearly states:

So while federal dollars do flow to NPR, the connection is indirect. It may be a fine point, but it’s an important distinction. The federal government can’t “defund” NPR. What Congress can do is cut CPB funding — which has diminished over the years and has, at times, been threatened.

So the Feds launder the money they give NPR. If a criminal launders his money to cover the tracks, does that really change any fundamental reality? So why should it change reality if the money that the government gives NPR is laundered?

Like the money the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets from foreign companies. Same difference.

Exactically!

 

[TheBigA]

This is a very funny discussion to me.

The answer is simple: Because commercial, profit-making companies like Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, and others often end up more focused on their own profits than on programming. Would you not agree that's a problem?

It was a problem in 1964, when former FCC Commissioner Newton Minnow criticized the "vast wasteland" of commercial TV. He told members of the National Press Club that the greatest country in the world deserved better. The Congress set up a commission to study broadcasting, and the reason why commercial broadcasting often went for the lowest common denominator, like running I Love Lucy reruns instead of Congressional Vietnam hearings. They determined it's because of the ratings and money. Remove the money incentive, and you get better broadcasting. That's how most countries have dealt with it. So the richest country in the world decided to fund broadcasting.

The reason any government funds go to public broadcasting (and they're a drop in the bucket) is so the public can have an alternative to Rupert Murdoch, Mark Mays, Farid Suleman, and all the other corporate owners. Don't you want an alternative to the big corporations? Someone has to pay for it. Money either comes from private investors and advertisers, or the government.

Americans hate greedy corporations. But they also hate big government. Eliminate them both, and you have Pakistan. Is that really what you want?