Funding of Public Broadcasting

Statement

Defunding Big Bird

It seems quite a few people are up in arms over the suggestion that the Federal Government might stop funding Public Broadcasting. They point out that this funding is a tiny drop in the bucket of the Federal deficit, and that, of course, Public Broadcasting didn't cause the current crisis. Both claims are, of course, correct -- but not really relevant.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step," said the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu. If we're ever going to tackle the horrific hole we've dug ourselves, we have to start somewhere. For several reasons, Public Broadcasting is as good a place to start as anywhere.

First, there is no reason to believe that your public TV and radio stations would fold up overnight if Uncle Sam cut off their gravy train. There's not even any real reason to believe they'd have to start running commercials, although the world wouldn't come to an end if they did. Government money is a fairly small part of these stations' overall funding picture. If they lost it, they might have to cut back expenses a bit, but they'd survive. They'd have to hit the corporate and institutional sponsors a little harder, and maybe add one or two more pledge weeks per year. That's fine with me. I love Peter, Paul and Mary.

Second, it should be remembered that Public Television is a child of the era when all TV was broadcast over the airwaves, and in most places, there were only three or four other choices. The major networks had to focus on broad audiences, and a case could be made that only Public TV could serve the smaller niches that the networks couldn't or wouldn't. Not anymore. In this age where most American homes get at least 70 different channels over cable or satellite, and many (most?) homes get two or three hundred, the idea that only Public TV can serve these niches no longer holds water. BBC America carries much of the programming that might have ended up on Masterpiece Theatre. Disney and Nickelodeon carry a wide variety of children's programming. Discover and Science carry (what else?) science programming. Even the History Channel still carries history programming every once in a while. In radio, XM radio is showing signs of having the same effect as cable TV.

Big Bird and company are a great example of the counterarguments to both of the first two points. Sesame Street is a gold mine in terms of merchandising. I have to believe that they could fund their own programming just from these sources of income alone. Even if they couldn't, Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family (which in corporate terms is also Disney) and one or two others would be thrilled to make room for Bert and Ernie, and would be equally happy to agree to keep their hands off the show's content just to get it. The same holds true, by the way, for the outstanding products of Public Broadcasting booster Ken Burns. He has said that he wouldn't work for a commercial outlet, because they'd demand that he alter his content. Maybe early in his career that might have been true, but it's not believable now. Several outlets would sign any deal necessary in order to have the privilege of running his next project. After the success of "the Hatfields and McCoys." do you think Kevin Costner will have any trouble getting complete autonomy for his next history-based miniseries (assuming he wants to do one)? And, by the way, I noticed that the first episode of Burns' last PBS production ended about 20 minutes short of the end of the hour. Could this be to facilitate its use in future pledge drives?

Third, the argument that we should do it because other countries do is weak at best. Canada gives public support to a broad range of artistic endeavors, including TV programming, but their most popular argument for doing so won't work here. We can't say that we're doing it to keep our culture from being overwhelmed by the bloody Americans.

My favorite argument I have saved for last. We should discontinue support for Public Broadcasting because there is no Constitutional provision for doing so. Here again, there are certainly other violations of the Constitution that are far more heinous and even far more dangerous. But also here again, like reducing the debt, we've got to start somewhere. Why not here?

Source