Full Version: Cutting PBS and NPR
Moveon.org recently posted a petition encouraging Congress to not cut funding for PBS or NPR. Anyway, Public Television and NPR get most of their funding from private sources so this shouldn't be too much of an issue regardless of what Congress does. So the main question for debate is
Should Congress cut public funding for PBS and NPR or not?
If Congress does continue funding those 2 stations, should politicians also have a stronger say in which shows get broadcasted on those stations?
Should Congress cut public funding for PBS and NPR or not?
If Congress does continue funding those 2 stations, should politicians also have a stronger say in which shows get broadcasted on those stations?
Here is a link to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I'll be getting a lot of information from this site.
CPB
You are correct, of course, that federal funding for public broadcasting is not the majority of overall funding.
However, the twenty or so percent that comes from the federal government is an appreciable amount. As a source of funding, it is second only to membership contributions, which supply about twenty-five percent. The question of federal funding is worth discussing.
Let me address the second question for debate first. The federal government already has a strong say when it comes to public broadcasting.
The big question here is how good a job the CPB is doing at meeting this goal. No doubt many will feel that public broadcasting has a liberal bias. That question has been asked of the general public in a couple of surveys done for the CPB. Very detailed reports of these surveys are available from CPB's website. One result that caught my eye was the fact that, across the board, more people (37%) say that public broadcasting has no apparent bias than a liberal bias (22 to 23%). It must be noted that between 11% and 15% thought that public broadcasting had a conservative bias. Perhaps this simply reflects the political opinions of the public.
It might be noted here the same survey revealed that 22% thought that Fox News had a liberal bias!
Based on these numbers, it seems that the CPB is doing a decent job of being reasonably balanced; if nothing else, it was seen as less biased than any other broadcast medium. I don't see a need for any more government oversight than there already is.
As far as the first question for debate goes, a lot depends on your personal political philosophy about federal spending. If you believe that it should be limited only to those functions which are absolutely necessary, it has to be admitted that the CPB is not a matter of life and death. In addition, as has been noted, public broadcasting will not die if federal funding is removed, although it will be hurt to some extent.
If we believe that the federal government should have some role to play in benefits to society which are not absolutely necessary, than the CPB seems like a decent place to spend a reasonable amount of money. The same surveys I have noted above indicate that, even among those who thought that public broadcasting was biased, a large majority thought that federal spending for the CPB was "about right" or "too low." Only 13% thought it was too high. 77% to 90% thought that public broadcasting was doing a good job, in response to yes/no questions like "PBS provides high quality programming" and "It is important for the federal government to support PBS financially."
Public broadcasting, like public libraries, may be something of a luxury; but it is not the first place I would cut spending.
CPB
You are correct, of course, that federal funding for public broadcasting is not the majority of overall funding.
QUOTE
Total Revenue (Fiscal Year 2003)
$2,333,498,000
Total Non-federal Revenue:
$1,878,848,000 (80.5%)
$2,333,498,000
Total Non-federal Revenue:
$1,878,848,000 (80.5%)
However, the twenty or so percent that comes from the federal government is an appreciable amount. As a source of funding, it is second only to membership contributions, which supply about twenty-five percent. The question of federal funding is worth discussing.
Let me address the second question for debate first. The federal government already has a strong say when it comes to public broadcasting.
QUOTE
From its advent almost four decades ago, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a legal mandate to ensure "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."
The big question here is how good a job the CPB is doing at meeting this goal. No doubt many will feel that public broadcasting has a liberal bias. That question has been asked of the general public in a couple of surveys done for the CPB. Very detailed reports of these surveys are available from CPB's website. One result that caught my eye was the fact that, across the board, more people (37%) say that public broadcasting has no apparent bias than a liberal bias (22 to 23%). It must be noted that between 11% and 15% thought that public broadcasting had a conservative bias. Perhaps this simply reflects the political opinions of the public.
It might be noted here the same survey revealed that 22% thought that Fox News had a liberal bias!
Based on these numbers, it seems that the CPB is doing a decent job of being reasonably balanced; if nothing else, it was seen as less biased than any other broadcast medium. I don't see a need for any more government oversight than there already is.
As far as the first question for debate goes, a lot depends on your personal political philosophy about federal spending. If you believe that it should be limited only to those functions which are absolutely necessary, it has to be admitted that the CPB is not a matter of life and death. In addition, as has been noted, public broadcasting will not die if federal funding is removed, although it will be hurt to some extent.
If we believe that the federal government should have some role to play in benefits to society which are not absolutely necessary, than the CPB seems like a decent place to spend a reasonable amount of money. The same surveys I have noted above indicate that, even among those who thought that public broadcasting was biased, a large majority thought that federal spending for the CPB was "about right" or "too low." Only 13% thought it was too high. 77% to 90% thought that public broadcasting was doing a good job, in response to yes/no questions like "PBS provides high quality programming" and "It is important for the federal government to support PBS financially."
Public broadcasting, like public libraries, may be something of a luxury; but it is not the first place I would cut spending.
Should Congress cut public funding for PBS and NPR or not?
Yes, because these things are not a proper function of the federal government. States are perfectly capable of running them on their own if they so choose. Call it a 10th Amendment thing.
If Congress does continue funding those 2 stations, should politicians also have a stronger say in which shows get broadcasted on those stations?
I have to take issue with the premise of this question. A "politician", pretty much by definition, is anyone who exercises government power. So if your broadcasting company gets a substantial share of its money from the government, and you're given near-plenary discretion as to how to use that money, that effectively makes you a politician, regardless of what label ultimately gets applied to you in public discourse. The only two options before us is whether the free market runs these stations, or whether politicians (in the true sense defined above) run them. If we decide on the latter, then it only comes down to a question of which politicians should be running them. At that point, it's pretty much only a question of personal preference.
Yes, because these things are not a proper function of the federal government. States are perfectly capable of running them on their own if they so choose. Call it a 10th Amendment thing.
If Congress does continue funding those 2 stations, should politicians also have a stronger say in which shows get broadcasted on those stations?
I have to take issue with the premise of this question. A "politician", pretty much by definition, is anyone who exercises government power. So if your broadcasting company gets a substantial share of its money from the government, and you're given near-plenary discretion as to how to use that money, that effectively makes you a politician, regardless of what label ultimately gets applied to you in public discourse. The only two options before us is whether the free market runs these stations, or whether politicians (in the true sense defined above) run them. If we decide on the latter, then it only comes down to a question of which politicians should be running them. At that point, it's pretty much only a question of personal preference.
I don't think PBS gets enough control from the Federal Government. I do agree that their news programs are pragmatic and well balanced between liberal and conservative views. My only issue with PBS is that so many of their shows are just plain boring. Have you ever watched one of the old British comedies without falling asleep? And then there are dumb kid shows like Sesame Street and Barney the purple dinosour? How can children be entertained by that trash? When I was a little kid, I always preferred to watch Unsolved Mysteries or America's Most Wanted. The public needs to have more control over what TV shows get broadcasted on PBS and by control, I mean that this stuff should be on the ballet in November. Now, if the public wants to keep trash like Barney on, then that's their choice. But the public should be given the choice.
QUOTE
I do agree that their news programs are pragmatic and well balanced between liberal and conservative views.
I agree with you on that. I'm a big fan of The McLaughlin Group and find that there is a good balance in regard to politics. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is also well balanced and fair.
QUOTE
My only issue with PBS is that so many of their shows are just plain boring. Have you ever watched one of the old British comedies without falling asleep? And then there are dumb kid shows like Sesame Street and Barney the purple dinosour? How can children be entertained by that trash?
I have a three year old and a one and a half year old who would disagree with you. From 6:00 a.m. on, it's Clifford the big red dog, Arthur, and other shows like that all the way. They love the first two or three, before wanting to do other things. The programming is intriguing and engaging for them.
QUOTE
Now, if the public wants to keep trash like Barney on, then that's their choice. But the public should be given the choice.
Being a publicly owned station, I think they try to appeal to the widest range of the American public at the appropriate time. Cartoons from 6:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. isn't a bad plan as most adults are sleeping, and the ones that are awake, are groggy and downing coffee since their children woke them up.
If you notice, the programming gets more serious as the day wears on, with a bout of cartoons again after school. It might be weird to go from Arthur to Jim Lehrer, but once again, they are a service that tries to appeal to all age ranges, and that's a good thing. 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.