The $2.9 trillion budget that the Bush administration proposed this week cuts the budget for public broadcasting by nearly 25 percent. The cuts have already prompted the reaction that the Bush administration surely expected: progressive groups are asking their members to lobby Congress to protect PBS and NPR. Are progressives falling into a right-wing trap that reinforces the conservative framing of PBS and NPR as tools of a "liberal elite"?
Conservatives have long attempted to portray public broadcasters and their supporters as a "liberal elite," taking subsidies from taxpayers whom they attempt to indoctrinate. (In fact, the U.S. spends about $1.70 per capita per year on public broadcasting, compared with $28 in Canada, $48 in Japan, $83 in the UK, and $85 in Germany.) This language is repeated regularly by conservative think tanks, commentators, and others. The following blog entry about a previous round of budget cuts that Bush sought in 2005 is typical of the language that many on the right have used:
"The New York Times has resorted to pointing to pork in the federal budget to argue against proposed cuts in funding the Public Broadcasting System. To conservatives, the taxpayer supported liberal radio and television programming is the ultimate example of wasteful government spending. The out-of-touch liberal elites haven't quite come to understand that they no longer control the nation's pursestrings. They further demonstrate their arrogance by resisting efforts to reform PBS programming to reflect the political balance in the United States."
That entry was written by a conservative with a unique perspective on balanced news coverage, the former White House correspondent for the fake Talon News Service and former prostitute Jeff Gannon. (The blog entry was titled, "Hear the Little Piggy Squeal.")
In addition to repeating the charges of liberal elitism and bias against NPR and PBS, conservative television broadcasters have constructed dialogues on programs that reinforce these allegations. The progressive media watchdog group FAIR has examined the Fox News practice of structuring programs in which an NPR journalist, such as Mara Liasson or Juan Williams, is placed in opposition to avowedly conservative commentators. Such practices frame the NPR reporter as a liberal, despite statements and affiliations in the case of Liasson or an entire book in the case of Williams that suggest otherwise.
The right-wing has also been adept in creating a vicious circle that defunds public broadcasting and reduces its support. When conservatives propose cutting the budget for public broadcasting, as Bush did this week, liberal groups are vocal in calling for the restoration of funds. This reinforces the framing of public broadcasting as a subsidy for the "liberal elite." Some conservatives, such as the libertarian Cato Institute, have also charged that public broadcasters use public funds to ask the public to lobby Congress, which further reinforces the conservatives' framing of public broadcasting.
There are also other steps in this vicious circle. To fulfill their mission and provide content that commercial broadcasters cannot, public broadcasters must be free of corporate influence. When conservatives succeed in reducing funding, PBS and NPR increase their reliance on corporate sponsors, which could, for instance, object to programming that criticizes their business practices. In addition, with a growing number of corporate sponsorship messages that increasingly resemble commercials, it becomes difficult for public broadcasting to justify either tax subsidies or member contributions. Reducing funds also curtails the ability of stations to pay for programming, which one public broadcaster describes as the start of a "spiral of death," to which rural stations are particularly vulnerable. In many rural areas, a public station can be a rare source of locally oriented programming and an alternative to the many conservative commercial broadcasters.
Challenges to the content of public broadcasting also serve to weaken the ability of PBS and NPR to fulfill their missions. When conservatives, including members of the Bush administration, criticize the content of a children's program, such as "Postcards from Buster," which included an interview with a child whose parents are lesbians, they reinforce the charge of liberal indoctrination. Liberals rally around such programs, reinforcing the view that public broadcasting serves liberal interests. They also place public broadcasters on notice that they should avoid material that conservatives find objectionable.
Other moves by Kenneth Tomlinson, who presided as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) until his resignation in 2005, also hurt the ability of NPR and PBS to achieve their missions. These moves included introducing more programs with conservative hosts, such as the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, to correct an alleged lack of balance and hiring a consultant to identify signs of liberalism and opposition to the Bush administration among guests on public broadcasting. Subsequent Bush appointees to the board that oversees public broadcasting, such as sitcom producer and National Review Online contributor Warren Bell in December 2006, continue to send the message that conservative credentials, not a commitment to the public interest, should govern public media.
Instead of remaining on the defensive and falling into the conservatives' traps, we must restore public broadcasting so that it serves the public good. Consider the Mission Statement of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which states in part:
"The fundamental purpose of public telecommunications is to provide programs and services which inform, enlighten and enrich the public. While these programs and services are provided to enhance the knowledge, and citizenship, and inspire the imagination of all Americans, the Corporation has particular responsibility to encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.
The Corporation is accountable to the public for investing its funds in programs and services which are educational, innovative, locally relevant, and reflective of America's common values and cultural diversity." [emphasis added]
With government funding diminishing every year and corporate sponsorship increasing, public broadcasting has been led astray from its mission. To avoid programming that could offend sponsors or conservative groups, PBS and NPR increasingly play it safe, offering less risky programming that does not fulfill its purpose. We must go further than merely demanding a rollback of cuts to an inadequate status quo. We must advocate for a larger vision of public media that support our democracy in ways that commercial interests cannot.
We must demand that public broadcasting return to its original mission – that of being a source of information and enlightenment that enhances our knowledge and citizenship and inspires us. It must no longer back down from presenting necessary truths, regardless of their controversy. It must not shy away from presenting cutting-edge programming in the arts because of fear of conservative attacks. A democracy is as strong as its citizenry and the citizenry can only be strong if it is informed and its mind is opened.
Written by Evan Frisch and Arianna Siegel, employees of the Rockridge Institute, who blog at the Rockridge Nation blog, where this is cross-posted.
Note: Alegre also has a diary that is worth reading about the latest cuts that Bush proposed to public broadcasting.