Public Broadcasting Cuts Send the Wrong Signal as Demand for News Rises

The budget battles raging in Washington and in state capitols around the country threaten to destroy public broadcasting in the United States.

Government at all levels—federal, state, and local—must make hard choices and rein in excessive and unnecessary spending.

But public radio and television deserve more money, not less, if we want Americans to be informed about important events in their communities, in the nation, and around the world.

During Congress’s Republican Revolution of 1995, budget cutters learned what may prove equally true today: Big Bird does not go quietly to slaughter.

Many things have changed since then, and they all cement the important role of government aid for public broadcasting.

Newspapers have been in rapid decline over the past decade. Shrinking circulation and lost ad revenue have led to the loss of tens of thousands of reporters and editors, who provide the lifeblood of accountability in our democracy.

In radio, a massive consolidation prompted by a 1996 law has reduced the diversity and local flavor of most commercial stations.

At the same time, public radio and television have grown in many ways to serve a broad range of information needs, providing the cultural, educational, and news and public-affairs programs that have been increasingly abandoned by commercial media outlets.

In Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, commercial radio companies have silenced their classical broadcast signals and public stations have taken over that vital role in providing cultural programs.

And with newspapers shrinking their coverage of state and local government, public radio is one of the few places in America that is expanding local newsgathering activities.

Grant makers like the Charles H. Revson Foundation and the Open Society Foundations have recently announced significant grants to support local and state radio reporting.

Plenty of other foundations and donors have shown an interest in supporting a diverse landscape for news and other programs.

But the immediate loss of federal support for public broadcasting would be a devastating loss to communities everywhere.

Local cultural, educational, and social-service organizations would get far less publicity and attention for their causes from local broadcasters.

And the pressure on private sources would be difficult to bear. Foundations are already under siege to fill every other gap that has resulted from government reductions in health and social-service spending.

In Washington, the budget debate has been framed as a choice between complete elimination of public broadcasting by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and essentially a freeze in current support by the Obama administration.

But instead of arguing over the possibility of eliminating support or at best maintaining current spending, perhaps lawmakers should consider significant increases in government support for public radio and television.

In today’s polarized political environment, public radio and television are the most trusted sources of news, according to both Harris Interactive and Hart Research. More to the point, demand for public broadcasting has never been greater.

By one measure, the weekly public-radio audience has grown from fewer than 10 million to more than 29 million in the past 25 years. And another broader measure suggests that 170 million Americans view or listen to some form of public media—on the radio or television, on the Web, or via podcast—every month.

Whatever figures are used, it seems clear that the audience for public broadcasting is large and growing, contrary to conventional wisdom that often portrays public radio and television as a small and elite niche service.

Other types of nonprofit news and information organizations are sprouting, too.

Many are online news services that have been created by enterprising journalists who are refugees from the empty newsrooms of once-dominant daily newspapers.

These online news services, like MinnPost, the St. Louis Beacon, and the Texas Tribune, among many others, have banded together to create a new organization, the Investigative News Network, to help nonprofit news sources become stable and sustainable.

Perhaps these new groups, plus existing radio and television stations and other innovative efforts, should be considered together and given sizable government support to insure that the public interest is served by the new media ecology.

Support for innovation, already a stated objective of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, needs to be strengthened.

When Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, he declared, “We must consider new ways to build a great network for knowledge—not just a broadcast system but one that employs every means of sending and storing information that the individual can use.”

Certainly all of these activities, whether broadcast or Internet-based services, deserve continued and increased private support. But there continues to be a central role for government.

Unfortunately, government support for public media in the United States lags far behind that of many other countries. According to a study of government spending in 15 countries, commissioned by the nonprofit advocacy group Free Press, most countries spend $30 to $134 per person. The United States spends just $4 per person, even when state, local, and federal funds are all included.

Of course it’s important to demonstrate that government-financed media can be strong and independent, but the Free Press report showed that public broadcasters in other countries are free to engage in critical coverage of government without interference from political leadership.

Perhaps more shocking than the disparity in government aid is the comparison of what the United States spends on broadcast services that reach other nations.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting now receives $420-million per year. By contrast, federal spending for the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other international broadcasting activities is $758- million.

So we are spending nearly twice as much on media and information for people outside the United States than we spend to educate and inform communities inside our borders.

Here’s an idea: If federal funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are eliminated altogether, perhaps American public broadcasters can petition foreign governments for support.