Philippa Thomas Online

Life and leadership coaching

Public broadcasting without public funding?


Do we need publicly funded broadcasting? Is it a luxury rather than a necessity, given the explosion of information on the internet? Is it a cash drain we can’t afford in this age of austerity? Is it an idea whose time has gone?

This blogpost is published with graphics on the BBC College of Journalism website.

Put these questions to a Republican member of the United States Congress and the answers might well sound shocking to BBC ears. Last month, members of the Republican-dominated House of Representatives voted to eliminate all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) from 2013.

On 9 March, the Senate threw back the House’s budget bill. But House Majority leader Eric Cantor is still vowing to press on with the plan to cut public broadcast funding. It might not be an imminent threat but the ‘defunding’ is a popular conservative cause in the United States.

You could say it’s a cause that’s more symbolic than substantial. It doesn’t mean pulling the plug on the PBS network of television stations – many of which carry BBC World News bulletins across the United States. It doesn’t mean the closure of the NPR radio stations which have for years rebroadcast BBC World Service radio programmes to millions of appreciative US citizens.

In fact, ‘public broadcasting’ in the States has long had only a fraction of its budget met directly by central government funds. It’s more a question of ‘seed money’ than taxpayers covering costs.

Take my breakfast listening to Boston broadcasters WBUR and WGBH. Federal dollars account for just 6% and 8% of funding for these stations. Which is why listeners like me learn to live with ‘the subscription drive’ – endless appeals to phone in and pay up to keep your station on the air. I was driven mad over Valentine’s Day weekend as WBUR’s newscasters repeatedly broke into World Service radio accounts of turmoil in North Africa to urge us to buy roses.

And to get my fix of Downton Abbey, rebroadcast on PBS last month, I had to wait for the long opening credits to thank the programme’s sponsors and “viewers like you” for making the necessary donations. The humiliating appeals for cash have even become a YouTube comedy staple, thanks to this season’s inspired advertisement starring Alec Baldwin.

In communities like mine, there is private cash for ‘public’ stations. As the Boston Globe newspaper columnist Alex Beam put it recently:

“Boston is a honeymoon hotel of public broadcasting love, with loyal and well-heeled audiences; it would be a stretch to say the stations here are desperate for congressional megabucks.”

The US simply has a different way of sustaining the arts; one that relies heavily on the philanthropy of wealthy individuals and the generosity of the foundations they endow. The tax system is framed to facilitate such generosity. The assumption is that if you’re rich you make donations – to museums, to the ballet, to galleries, and even to journalists like us.

So, federal funding or not, some of the stations defined as ‘public broadcasters’ will continue to exist.

But some could go to the wall. That was the message from the campaign ‘170 million Americans for Public Broadcasting’. Here are the statistics laid out on the campaign website: 170 million Americans connect through 368 public television stations, 934 public radio stations and hundreds of online services.

‘170 million Americans’ says that the people who most need these programmes will be hardest hit if the federal funding crumbles. It’s the smallest stations – many in remote rural areas; many offering the single local source of international news – which need the highest proportion of government subsidy to stay on the air.

Is there a case for continuing taxpayer funding to serve audiences like these? If so, then the fight over federal dollars for US public broadcasters is worthwhile. The campaign has lived to fight another day. But the battle isn’t over.

Author: philippathomas

I've been a BBC newswoman for 30 years: reporting from around the world. Currently to be seen anchoring BBC World News TV. Main interests - politics, psychology, reading, trekking, and all things American. I began this personal blog as a 2011 Nieman Journalism Fellow at Harvard. You can also find me talking daily news on Twitter at @PhilippaBBC, coaching @positivecoachi3, and life & travel on Instagram at @philippanews. Thanks for reading!

3 thoughts on “Public broadcasting without public funding?

  1. Pingback: Public broadcasting without public funding? | Philippa Thomas Online | World Media Information

  2. I believe that the ridiculous rules on Public Broadcasters (they cannot run “ads” but they can relate heartwarming stories about what their “underwriters” do without making them sound like actual ads) have hampered their ability to raise the funds necessary to operate. Federal funding for the arts is all well and good. I’ve never had a problem with that (the budget is miniscule). I do think that certain outlets would thrive if they could raise funds from advertising. Others would fail. But their success or failure wouldn’t be based on Federal funding. The business model for these broadcast outlets is thirty or more years out of date anyway.

    With larger budgets comes better programming. And what people do not realize is that for-profit broadcasters began shooting themselves in the foot ten years ago by running more and more “reality” television programming. In ten more years, the money that they could have made from syndication simply won’t be there. It’s one thing to syndicate a one-hour drama or a half-hour sitcom; it’s entirely another to try to syndicate season four of “Survivor.” And this is entirely because the for-profit broadcasters made a business decision to go with reality television programming. What few shows they will have in syndication will likely be lost in the vast muddle of Internet programming anyway.

    When public broadcasters make a show, it’s generally one that is long-lived and has value six months, two years, and even five to ten years from when it was broadcast. More of that, please.

  3. We absolutely need public broadcasting.

    BUT we need a public broadcasting which reports news objectively – NOT another mouthpiece for corporatist propaganda, which is the CURRENT sorry state of NPR right now.

    They have been shilling for corporatist interests ever since George Bush Jr purged the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of decent people and installed a bunch of corrupt hacks.

    Republican attacks on public tv/radio have been quite hilarious, as they are criticizing the very people who help spread their propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.