Why is pbs federally funded

#|

One entity formed to unify that support is Protect My Public Media , a collaboration of local public radio and TV stations, program producers and distributors, listeners and viewers who support a strong public media in the United States.

You can help by sharing your testimonial here — they will be used as a resource when meeting with policy makers in the coming months. Click here to download a set of graphics you can share on social media about the value of PBS. FAQs Why does public broadcasting need federal funding? What is the CPB's role in public broadcasting? It is not a broadcaster, but a private corporation created by Congress in with two primary functions: Serve as a firewall between partisan politics and public broadcasting Help fund programming, stations and technology How much funding is appropriated to the CPB?

We are fortunate to have a wide variety of revenue sources, which breaks down like this: America's Public Television Stations' Pat Butler makes the case for continued federal funding. Speech text online here. At the same time, Representative Ryan WI , the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget for the th Congress, proposed a new continuing resolution that would have set the rest of the FY budget at FY levels excluding defense, homeland security, and veterans' programs.

In the th Congress, several bills were introduced addressing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System, and issues related to these institutions and their funding. As the title indicates, this bill would have eliminated all direct federal funding for NPR as well as federal funding to sell or acquire NPR-based programming content.

The bill would have revised disaster relief law to include public broadcasting facilities, among other provisions. On July 11, , S. This bill was incorporated into H. On January 30, , Representative Lamborn introduced H. In an age of multiple cable channel options, digital radio, and computerized digital streaming, some ask whether there is a need for federal appropriations to support public broadcasting. The array of commercial all-news radio and radio talk shows, many of which are also streamed on the Internet, provides various sources of news and opinion.

Supporters of public broadcasting argue that public radio and television broadcasters, free of commercial interruption, provide perhaps the last bastion of balanced and objective information, news, children's education, and entertainment in an era of a changing media landscape.

Still others contend that public broadcasting has lost much of its early impact since the media choices have grown so much over the last several decades and that the federal role in public broadcasting should be reevaluated as well. Supporters of public broadcasting contend that public radio and public television provide education and news to many underserved parts of the American population.

Public broadcasters may provide this service to an underserved and less commercially attractive population that commercial broadcasters do not address. For example, PBS broadcasting for children includes lessons in reading, counting, and spelling, subjects not normally found on commercial broadcasts. According to NPR Inc. The report was undertaken in response to language in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of directing the CPB to provide a report to congressional appropriations committees on alternative sources of federal funding for public broadcasting stations.

In addition, 14 current sources of revenue streams already employed by public broadcasting, ranging from merchandise licensing to mobile device applications, were also analyzed as options to replace federal funding for public broadcasting. Still, some critics contend that the report substantiates criticisms of the public broadcasting model: required to compete with commercial television and radio broadcasters that also provide news and entertainment, many public broadcasters could not adapt to a changing media world that provides multiple sources of information and entertainment.

For these critics, if many public broadcasters struggle to operate with budget deficits even with federal funding available, what does that say about the need and viability of these stations in a multimedia world, or the ability of their audiences to sustain this business model going forward?

Several important issues are facing congressional policymakers as they address federal appropriations for all forms of public broadcasting. On the most fundamental level, many question the law that created the national public broadcasting system and whether the federal government should be in the "business" of providing general appropriations to CPB every year since They ask: is this still a relevant and appropriate role of the federal government? On a second level, some may contend that in an era of spiraling federal deficits, in which many if not all federal expenditures are being reexamined, appropriations for CPB should be reduced if not eliminated.

Underlying this position are concerns that the federal role, once so clear in , has been eclipsed in a multimedia Internet age; concerns that the size and scope of the federal government budget deficit requires significant cutbacks in many areas; and allegations that public broadcasting is not objective, balanced, or free of an ideological slant.

These questions revolve around whether federal funding for public broadcasting should be continued at its current level; whether the funding should be modified or reduced; whether the arrangement between the federal funding process and public broadcasting should be changed; or whether federal funding for public broadcasting should be eliminated.

Public broadcasting retains its strong supporters. As indicated in Table 1 , CPB has consistently received increasing federal appropriations since Some would contend that this demonstrates a general consensus among congressional policymakers that there is a federal role in public broadcasting. How is CPB governed? Who pays for public media? Who creates the programs on public media? Who operates the stations?

How many public media stations are there? When does a program air? How can I get a program on the air? How can I support public media? What kind of programming does CPB fund? How can I request grants or funding for programming? Can I request grants or funding for a radio station? Can I request grants or funding for a television station? CPB is the steward of the federal government's investment in public media and supports the operations of nearly 1, locally owned and operated public television and radio stations.

Learn more here. CPB is a private nonprofit corporation created and funded by the federal government and is the steward of federal funding for public media. CPB does not produce or distribute programs, nor does it own, control or operate any broadcast stations. PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise owned by its member public television stations. PBS distributes programming to approximately locally controlled and operated public television stations across the country and is funded principally by these member stations, distribution and underwriting.

NPR is an independent nonprofit membership organization of separately licensed and operated public radio stations across the United States. NPR produces and distributes news, information, and cultural programming across broadcast and digital platforms. NPR has more than member stations that, as independent entities, own and operate about 1, stations nationwide.

Three main arguments follow: government spending in journalism falls outside the proper role of government; the problem is worsened by the left-leaning bias of the programming, which is unfair to roughly half the country, which must yet pay for public broadcasts; any justification that might have existed for public broadcasting in the s has now disappeared under the new technological environment.

These three problems are analyzed below. The careful reader will find that funding does not appear for either the press or education. Supreme Court has also refused to recognize any right to a taxpayer-funded education. Over time, support grew for publicly funded education if left to the individual states under the 10 th Amendment. In the mid th century, the concept of federal funding for education carried into classrooms by broadcasters had not yet been embraced, however. However the early embrace of public affairs and the diminution of the educational component courted immediate opposition.

Its purpose was to encourage local and private initiatives in educational programming and experimental program development. In its present form, NPR is just that, a journalistic medium, and one in which liberal voices dominate.

As for PBS, little remains of the dreams Johnson harbored of outstanding teachers being brought to classrooms like his at Cotulla through the miracle of television. This is not to say that there is no educational programming, but parsing what separates it from public affairs is not easy.

LearningMedia is the portal through which teachers and parents can register and access digital resources, videos, interactive material, lesson plans and images.

That would only, however, raise questions for conservatives about whether educational programming is being used as surreptitious political indoctrination of the young. They have their own network. We are talking about political documentaries which come as close to being an editorial page as an institution such as broadcasting has. There is also an inherent contradiction in government funding media, when the media is supposed to keep government in check.

When taxpayers believe their taxes are being misused, they demand accountability and pressure their elected officials, who then turn that pressure on the public broadcaster. This is why government and the press must exist separately if the latter is to be an independent check on the former. Changing the funding from annual appropriations to the BBC-style excise tax on television sets and radios that was proposed in the s would not fundamentally change the equation; such a tax would still be imposed by government, and it would also be increasingly impractical in the age of the Internet.

All taxpayer funds are raised coercively, which is why the government must act prudently when deciding what to do with the extracted funds. The courts have held that Congress has the right to appropriate funds for ends that not all citizens agree on — say, a war — as long as those ends contribute to the public good and general safety.

However in the area of expression, the courts have emphasized the need for balance. In Wisconsin v. Southworth in , the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory university student activity fees used to support student groups that engaged in expressive activity. As Justice Samuel Alito explained when he wrote the opinion in the Harris v. Quinn case:. Public universities have a compelling interest in promoting student expression in a manner that is viewpoint neutral … This may be done by providing funding for a broad array of student groups.

If the groups funded are truly diverse, many students are likely to disagree with things that are said by some groups [emphasis mine]. Thus, the issue of bias makes its entry. In insisting on objectivity and balance and banning editorializing, the drafters of the Broadcasting Act seem to have had a good sense of the Constitution. When they let their guard down, NPR, PBS and their parent organization, the CPB, admit that their workforce is overwhelmingly progressive[] but reject that such lack of intellectual diversity has an impact on their output.

For that to be true, however, one would have to believe that liberals are fully conversant with conservative perspectives and ideas. More importantly, it would also have to be true that practically every Republican and Democratic leader since has been fundamentally wrong concerning their own political interests, the former in criticizing public broadcasting and the latter the opposite.

The argument that populating a newsroom with liberals will nonetheless produce objective reporting was well articulated on Sept. Bob Garfield : You and I both know that if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and at all of the member stations, you would find a progressive, liberal crowd, not uniformly, but overwhelmingly. Ira Glass : Journalism, in general, reporters tend to be Democrats and tend to be more liberal than the public as a whole, sure.

That journalists are more liberal than the public has been proven by countless studies. Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple did a good job of compiling many of those studies in a Jan. Its very existence is a rebuke to a profit-driven society. He asked questions that would never have even occurred to the other moderators. The conservative commentator Arnold Steinberg, who in his youth in the s worked for Fred Friendly, raised the same point.

Of course it is, and everyone knows it. The free-market economist Milton Friedman also had a documentary series in the s. Buckley and Friedman, however, spoke of feeling like outsiders at PBS.

Audiences have never been in any doubt. They competed mercilessly inside this environment, but at the end of the day they had million Americans to divvy up. This oligopoly, moreover, relied on a finite spectrum, giving the industry the look of highly regulated utilities. The presidents of ABC, CBS and NBC supported the creation of public broadcasting in Congressional hearings, arguing that commercial TV was incapable of producing the educational and cultural content that Johnson and the Carnegie Commission wanted because such programming did not appeal to mass audiences.

The belief that broadcasters interested in profit were too crass to deliver education and culture permeated the creation of the CPB. You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons.

And endlessly, commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. The same reason was given for broadcasting to low-density rural communities with underserved audiences that only government-subsidized broadcasting could serve.

The commercial networks, in other words, were after advertising dollars, and the drafters of the bill promised that the CPB would not compete for those. Today, Leonard H. Cable, satellite and the internet have transformed this world, and what purpose the CPB serves that could not be served by others is hard to imagine. Will has a point. Any public-spirited person looking for information on radio or television that would help make her a better-informed citizen can find everything she needs on the commercial dial.

In terms of the in-classroom help that the former teacher at the little schoolhouse in Cotulla wanted, what we have today is if anything too much choice. I am always excited to learn about new technology, but overwhelmed at how much there is out there.