PUBLIC BROADCASTING.   Term Paper ID:30144 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Discusses funding issues of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).... More...

7 Pages / 1575 Words 7 sources, 11 Citations, MLA Format $28.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Discusses funding issues of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Impact of the increase of corporate funding to replace cuts in government funding. Problem of continued viewer financial support. Makeup & budget of PBS. Response of Presidental administrations to funding public broadcasting. Canadian system. Paper Introduction: In order for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System to survive and flourish as they have for the last three decades, the issue of funding is of vital importance. Recent efforts by political enemies of PBS to cut funding have forced the issues of government funding and of alternative funding methods onto the national agenda. PBS has responded by considering different ways of bringing in revenues to replace government funding in case such funding is cut. One of the ways being explored is increased corporate funding, even to the point of showing commercials on public television. This challenges the way PBS has always operated, raises questions about continuing viewer support, and might remove the appearance of independence that has marked the network since its inception. To date, PBS has not gone so far as to sell commercials as Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. This is preciselythe concern about increased corporate funding today, that it will mean areduction in criticism of corporate interests and interference, both directand indirect, in programming decisions. Works CitedBarsamian, David. The potential loss of funding for PBS and the Corporation for PublicBroadcasting could be made up with increased corporate support if suchsupport did not entail problems of control and loss of integrity. The same sort of perception-by-associationwould follow increased corporate funding and commercialization as well. PBS Behind the Screen. There is something unethical in this kind of ideological control,however, in a country that celebrates freedom of speech. In 1992, the Republicans' Contract withAmerica sought to abolish federal funding for public broadcasting. The executive director of theMedia Access Project, a public interest law firm in Washington, is GigiSohn, and she states a major concern when she says, "The problem is, themore you team up with commercial providers, the more you take on commercialvalues." These are the values PBS was created to avoid. For a long time, though, PBS has had corporate funding,which meant no more than that the corporation paid for the programming andreceived a credit in the form of "Funding Provided By" or "Funded By,"followed by the name of the corporation. The political, congressional, and budgetary threats have beencompounded by a religious, fundamentalist minority who perceive publicbroadcasting to be inimical to U.S. The authors of the report believed the trend couldbe reversed; in 1984, though, President Ronald Reagan vetoed the publicbroadcasting authorization bill. Advocates of public television are increasingly concerned thatPBS programmers will make decisions based on how well a video will sellrather than on pure educational content. Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association,attacks all programs he perceives to be pornographic, such as Tales of theCity, a series about gays, and Tongues Untied, a film about the racism andhomophobia that homosexual black men face daily (Rich 4, 7). Corporations do not"sponsor" specific shows and so have no control at all over content. Even this degree of corporateinvolvement raised a few eyebrows--corporations might fund programs onsubjects of particular interest to them and so might be suspected of havingbrought pressure to shape the program one way or another. "Subsidizing the Counterculture." Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (3 Jan. Continued funding at a reasonable level shouldbe assured without the need for periodic congressional votes so long as theindependent body does not report a pervasive and destructive bias over aset period of time--one or two programs cannot be an excuse for what wouldamount to censorship on a broad scale. In 1972, Nixonvetoed the authorization bill for the corporation for Public Broadcasting.The chair, president, and director of PBS resigned in protest, after whichNixon signed the bill. ThomasSowell, a syndicated columnist based at Stanford University's HooverInstitution, shows absolute hostility to PBS, accusing it of attacking thefamily, the free market, and U.S. Recent efforts bypolitical enemies of PBS to cut funding have forced the issues ofgovernment funding and of alternative funding methods onto the nationalagenda. The Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting offereda report in 1979 called A Public Trust took note of the decline of publicdebate in public broadcasting programming, as underfinancing compelledaudience maximization. Senator Larry Pressler demanded that CPB tellhim, "How many NPR staff have previously worked for Pacifica stations?"(Barsamian 9), with Pacifica being an admittedly leftist radio system.Pressler backed off only in the face of constituent support for publicbroadcasting in his home state of South Dakota. As for corporate funding fears, the Canadian system might be adopted. Funding should be assured or ismeaningless. history in general; of presenting "onlythe Sierra Club line"; of purveying "the left-wing and counterculturebias"; of fraudulently appropriating the honorific "public" when thenetworks are "far more attuned to what the average American wants"; ofcalling itself noncommercial when it is thoroughly commercial; and of"spitting in the face of the people who pay the bills" (Sowell 4B). The total budget for public television covers 349 memberstations, many of which have been highly creative in finding ways to add totheir funding during pledge drives, auctions, and other fund-raisingactivities (McGraw 42). "The Public Broadcasting Service: Censorship, Self- censorship, and the Struggle for Independence." Journal of Popular Film and Television 24(1997), 177-181.Graham, Tim. "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting." The World & I (1 April 1995), B.Jarvik, Laurence. In order for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the PublicBroadcasting System to survive and flourish as they have for the last threedecades, the issue of funding is of vital importance. values. Such general funding avoids eventhe appearance of a conflict with programs, and part of the contract withcorporations is that they are not sponsoring any specific show or idea andmay even appear around programs with which they would disagree. News & World Report (15 June, 1998), 42.Rich, Frank. Republican-ledattacks repeatedly centered on allegedly leftist public television and hassupported "expanding corporate power specifically by extending its controlover valuable frequencies occupied by the hundreds of PBS and public radiostations" (Barsamian 8). Reagan cut funding as various Republican leadersattacked program content, condemning Vietnam: A Television History as beingtoo critical of the United States; The Africans as being too critical ofcolonialism and imperialism; Days of Rage, on the Intifada, as being toocritical of Israel; and Bill Moyers's The Secret Government, about the Iran-Contra scandal, as un-American: "This handful of documentaries became thefocus for a general attack on 'Left' public broadcasting" (Bennett 178). "Right-Wing Take-over of Public Broadcasting." Z Magazine (April 1995), 6-8.Bennett, James R. The Public Broadcasting Service was founded in 1969 to coordinate andprovide services to non-profit television stations providing educationalprogramming across the country. A recent analysis suggests that the threat to public broadcastingbegan with President Nixon, who was infuriated by the 197 documentary"Banks and the Poor," which exposed banking practices harmful to the poorin urban areas (Barsamian 7). Support returned to normal levels with the Carter administration, butpolitical and economic pressures were brought to bear once more with theReagan administration. One ofthe ways being explored is increased corporate funding, even to the pointof showing commercials on public television. For those politiciansdemanding control, however, anything less than absolute consistency totheir position is suspect. taxpayer pays about $1 a year, theBritish subject $39), many in Congress believe that the Corporation forPublic Broadcasting (CPB), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), andNational Public Radio (NPR) either too costly or too liberal (Bennett 178). Rocklin, California: Prima Publishing, 1997.McGraw, Dan. The CBC also accepts corporate sponsorship even to the point of outrightadvertising, but the system has been devised in a way that avoids thepitfalls many foresee for the American system if such funding is accepted.This is accomplished by soliciting corporate funds to be placed in ageneral fund, not a fund for a specific program. Theirgrants are noted, but they are not noted as being part of a program but asbeing supporters of the entire system. With a Republican Housechallenging a variety of programs deemed liberal, it became clear that theprotection afforded CPB in the past was no longer assured. The corporation for Public Broadcasting was developed in an era whenboth houses of Congress were Democratic, and though, as noted, the CPB hasfaced a number of threats from different administrations, it has weatheredthem with continued support from Congress. Some conservatives claim that PBS's ability tomake money in private business deals proves that it no longer needs federalfunding. "Is PBS Too Commercial?." U.S. The annual budget for The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)isabout $1.5 billion, and of this, $25 million comes from the government,which provides basic financial support for more than 1, public TV andradio stations. Yet, politicaland economic realities also have to be faced, and as PBS Chief ExecutiveErvin Duggan notes, it is nearly impossible to win in the current climate.He states: "In 1995, we were accused of not getting enough money from themerchandising deals. The original veto, however, crippled publicbroadcasting and still does to this day (Bennett 178). 1995), 4B. traditions and to what they believe areU.S. Corporations fund programs supporting a business pointof view, and other funders support programs which the right sees as left-leaning. This challenges the way PBShas always operated, raises questions about continuing viewer support, andmight remove the appearance of independence that has marked the networksince its inception. Theseills can be avoided by adopting the Canadian system of a pool of corporatemoney rather than a direct connection between corporate funding andspecific programs. Whilethere has been much greater government subsidy for public broadcasting inother industrial nations (the U.S. An increase incorporate sponsorship or even outright advertising such as has beencontemplated more recently would only increase the perception of corporateinterference. Theseideas have been echoed by others who see PBS as biased (Graham B). Such lists were sold to both republicansand Democrats, though the sale of one set to a Democrat made the issue seemmore partisan than it was. Since that time, the service has grown,adding television stations and new services as public demand has increasedand as new opportunities arise. Critics have challenged current practices, such as the alliances withDisney, Time Warner, and Microsoft, and criticisms arise on both sides ofthe political spectrum. To date, PBS has not gone so far as to sellcommercials as the broadcast networks have done for decades and as somecable networks do. It is simply wrongto try to limit the speech of either side, but whether the agency is doingso should be determined by an independently appointed body, not bycongressional ideologues. 1994), 17.Sowell, Thomas. Congress always uses its ability to provide funds as a leashfor agencies and programs, and ideologues on both sides can find evidenceon a system like PBS that the other ideological side is being favored insome way or other. The service is governed by a 35-memberboard of directors which consisted of 13 professional representatives and17 lay representatives from the member stations, 4 general directors, andthe PBS president (Jarvik 1-5 ). The two points of view are actually presented in some measure,and this should be sufficient to show impartiality. The pressure has been great, so great that some ofthe means of raising funds have also raised questions. PBS has responded by considering different ways of bringing inrevenues to replace government funding in case such funding is cut. Any advertising message is placedby the CBC wherever management deems fit. Now we're accused of having too many deals" (McGraw42). The most recentflap concerned the selling of member rosters to political candidates whowanted to reach potential donors. That documentary also alienated many inCongress because it listed 133 senators and House members with bankholdings or who served on boards of directors for banks. "The Plot Thickens at PBS." New York Times (17 Apr. The underlying problem with PBS is that it was created as anostensibly independent body yet is anything but so long as it depends onthe political system for funding. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.