THE CRISIS OF U.S. PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Our democracy requires some space in our vast system of communications that is not controlled by the imperatives of power or profit. This would be space where issues can be explored without censorship; where programs are not designed around product placements and commercial interruptions; where program ideas are not driven by selling audiences to advertisers; where minorities can be served without concern for ratings. This age of increasing concentration of media ownership into fewer and larger corporate giants makes the need for alternative perspectives and sources of information even more crucial.

The Carnegie Commission, authorized by President Johnson, envisioned a public broadcasting that would serve as "a forum for controversy and debate" and "a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard" so that we could "see America whole, in all its diversity." Over the years, public broadcasting has made many distinguished contributions to fulfilling this mission. Unfortunately, political and economic constraints have prevented a good service from becoming excellent.

Public broadcasting in other industrial democracies typically enjoys an independent source of revenue, much higher levels of funding, more money for program production, a broader schedule of programs, and bigger audiences. In contrast, public broadcasting in the U.S. must depend on a broad mix of Congressional and legislative appropriations, subscriber donations and corporate and foundation underwriting. This fragmented funding structure brings with it pervasive pressures to restrict grant support and air time to programs that will appeal to those who control the purse strings.

As a consequence, U.S. public broadcasters have felt forced by circumstances to play it safe. There typically are nightly and weekly programs featuring Wall Street and business news, but no regular programs that examine the economy from the perspective of workers, consumers or environmentalists. PBS' one nightly news program duplicates the same reliance on official voices as commercial network news. Local news and public affairs programs are much too rare. Public broadcasting's unique mission demands that it present public affairs programming that stimulates civic education and engagement.

In recent years, the very non-commercial nature of the service has been under assault. There are more co-production deals with commercial partners looking for marketing spin-offs. There are e-commerce services and partnerships with retail outlets. Before she quit recently, PBS Program chief Kathy Quattrone complained, "Many program decisions are being based not on the program value they bring but what kind of a deal it can bring." Five-second underwriting acknowledgements have expanded into 30-second commercials, including enticements on children's programs for junk food and theme parks. Former PBS President Bruce Christensen has warned that, unless the funding problems can be solved, public broadcasting "will become a commercial medium in the next century."

While increasing commercialism might serve the bottom line (if not mission) of a few stations, it threatens the survival of small market and state owned stations. A 1995 Lehman Brothers study for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded that more advertising would cause subscriber contributions and federal appropriations to decline, resulting in "a net loss" for public television. A 1999 study by Audience Research Associates found that 44 percent of public radio's audience would cut back on their contributions if business underwriting spots increased.

In 1999, former PBS President Ervin Duggan reported that some station leaders proposed that the social contract for PBS be changed from "noncommercial" to "nonprofit." He feared this would lead to the broadcasting's non-taxable status and copyright concessions. At the least, all justification for public money would disappear.

In this context, we also are concerned about the self-interested drive by many big market stations to eliminate secondary "overlapped" stations. A 1989 PBS study of secondary stations found duplication of programming to be "very low." As compared to primary stations, secondary station schedules were "more diverse" and secondary station managers "more responsive to local audience needs." We can and must keep all our reserved frequencies and improve local programming at the same time.

Finally, we understand well the nature, possibilities and costs of the emerging telecommunications technologies. We also know that the public interest will not be adequately represented in the pending digital transition unless public broadcasters choose to assert it.

CIPB has an answer to this crisis: A Public Broadcasting Trust.