What is Really Behind Questionable Deals

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

In his opinion article, “Television Deal Sets Bad Precedent for Charities,” David Madland (Opinion, May 18) does not look at the big picture and therefore is looking at the wrong equation.

For some time, our government and its agencies have moved away from public support of cultural organizations. Most evident have been attempts to kill the National Endowment for the Arts and therefore force many of those who rely on that funding to look for “creative” alternatives.

Another example is declining funding streams going to public broadcasting. This has pressured both public television and radio to take on “advertising” to make ends meet and form partnerships with the private sector that they would have shunned not so long ago. Even Sesame Street has started a for-profit division and a new cable channel.

The column states that members of Congress question the path being followed by the Smithsonian Institution, as it makes questionable deals with the likes of Showtime Networks; but this very same Congress suggested that the Smithsonian might have to start charging admission because it will continue to cut the institution’s budget.

There are only so many options institutions have with the extraordinary national deficit and the mindset in the United States that has long been uncomfortable with the public funding of nonprofits.

Certainly it would be ideal if the Smithsonian could remain free to the public and free of deals like the one with Showtime, but how many choices are there?

Many in the nonprofit world don’t want the Smithsonian to begin competing for already tight dollars from foundations and individuals. So the Smithsonian’s options are limited and is it not better for the institution to keep the doors open?

Our nation has long made choices about where public funding does and does not go. We cut back on culture and the arts, we are not overly generous with foreign aid, and from the federal government on down legislation is passed, but the funding for those programs must come from the local level. (No Child Left Behind is but one such example.)

This puts great pressure on the nonprofit world and those generous individuals, corporations, and foundations that keep them operational. Before we cast stones at the Smithsonian or public broadcasters, we should have a national discussion of our priorities and, if need be, take the appropriate action at the ballot box to ensure that what we believe is essential is appropriately funded.

Robert Kesten
Executive Director
TV-Turnoff Network
Washington