roundtable: Rightwing Attack on Public Media

roundtable: Rightwing Attack on Public Media

Rightwing Attack on Public Media

RznDemoPM@aol.com
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 23:56:38 -0500 

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 23:56:38 -0500
From: RznDemoPM@aol.com
Message-Id: <950201235636_10608686@aol.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Rightwing Attack on Public Media



Hi!

I've just joined this list, but have posted this elsewhere on the net.
Please feel free to distribute, comment & respond to me directly.  Your
feedback is welcomed.

***
From: Paul Rosenberg, Founder & Director
Reason & Democracy / Committee to Save Public Media
RznDemoPM@aol.com
(310) 436-3113
***



Rightwing Attack on Public Media - A Rush Past Judgement

*** 10 Conservative Claims Refuted ***

Can you say "railroad?"  Sure you can!

Republicans in Congress continue to misinterpret their narrow victory in
November as a sweeping mandate to reverse decades of bipartisan policy 
on everything under the sun.  Public media are high on their hitlist--
now that the elections are over.  And, contrary to their promise of 
legislative openness, they plan a vengeful rush past judgement, 
threatening to cut off funding that has already beem appropriated, before 
there is time or opportunity for reflection, deliberation and rational 
debate.   As a result, old lies often repeated will play a decisive role.  
The time needed to examine, probe and reflect--which is, allegedly, the 
purpose of Congressional hearings--will not be taken to do so.

The Committee to Save Public Media offers the following information sheet 
to counter the onslaught of conservative disinformation, oft-repeated but
largely unquestioned that threatens to dominate the debate--or lack thereof.

Fundamental Points:

Conservatives claim public media is parasitic, can't "pay its own way." 

Truth: Commercial broadcasting is parasitic--it is entirely dependent on 
the public airwaves, without which it would not and could not exist.  
Licensing fees & taxes on their use of the public airways is vastly lower 
than the value of those public resources.

Conservatives claim PBS & NPR have a "liberal bias."

Truth: Every time liberal voices, viewpoints and concerns are aired,
conservatives cried "murder."  The unexceptional norm at PBS is 
conservatives on the right and centrists on the left.  The liberal, 
democratic counterparts to William Buckley & John McClaughlin, Wall 
$treet Week & Tony Brown's Journal are nowhere to be found.  NPR's two 
former Congressmen commentators--one Democrat, one Republican--are 
lobbyists now, representing many of the same monied special interests, 
including the health insurance industry and the Alliance for GATT Now.

Conservatives claim it's necessary to help balance the budget.

Truth: CPB funding is a pittance, about 1/1000 of the military budget, 
which is arbitrarily exempt from all talk of "deficit reduction," 
"balancing the budget," "efficiency," "accountability," "fraud & 
abuse," etc.

Conservatives claim that PBS & NPR should enter the marketplace, make 
more money from product spinoffs like Barney, and rely more on corporate
sponsorships.

Truth: NPR and PBS have never fulfilled their original mission, largely
because they have been too commercial, even with government support.
Increased reliance on popular programs and big-buck corporate funders 
will make public broadcasting even less of an alternative to the 
corporate media. 

A point-by-point response to claims made by conservative critics:

1.  Republicans claim that public television & radio should pay their 
own way.

Response: Commercial television & radio should pay their own way.  The
airwaves are a public resource, without which the entire industry would 
not exist.  The licensing of this public resource should, at minimum, 
provide funding for meeting public needs which the marketplace is not 
equipped to fill.

2.  Republicans claim that PBS & NPR possess a "liberal bias."  

Response: The truth is just the opposite.  

Bias in Programming Orientation:

Most PBS stations carry 3 business-oriented series--Nightly Business 
Report, Wall $treet Week, and Adam Smith's Money World--but no labor-
oriented, consumer-oriented or environmentally-oriented programs (unless 
you count the apolitical Nature!)  PBS stations carry 3 programs hosted 
by rightwing hosts--The McLaughlin Group, John McLaughlin One-On-One and 
William Buckley's Firing Line--but none hosted by someone on the left.  
PBS has no regular programming dealing with issues of the Latino 
community.  The only program it has dealing with issues of the African-
American community--Tony Brown's Journal--is hosted by a Black Republican.  
PBS' only series on women's issues--To The Contrary--is carefully 
"balanced" between feminist advocates & critics--hardly a true reflection 
of women's views. 

Exclusion of diverse programming and under-represented Views: 

Even more shocking is what's missing--series like: We Do The Work, about
American workers, In the Life, a gay & lesbian series, Rights & Wrongs, 
the world's only human rights TV series (with PBS star reporter Charlayne
Hunter-Gault), America's Defense Monitor, a series produced by retired
military officers that challenges Pentagon orthodoxy.  Without PBS 
support, these programs are distributed station-by-station, reaching a 
fraction of their potential audience.

Bias in Sourcing:

Despite the greater depth of reporting, and nuance of analysis, the 
sources used on their flagship news programs come from the same limited 
spectrum of analysis as the corporate media.  For instance, NPR uses two 
former Congressmen, Republican Vin Weber and Democrat Tom Downey, to 
provide "balanced commentary."  Both are now lobbyists representing, 
among others, insurance companies with financial interests in health 
care, and the Alliance for GATT Now.   Rather than representing a 
"lively liberal-conservative debate," (as NPR's Editorial Director, John 
Dinges claimed), these two presented only the big-business side of the 
debate, while pretending to cover the entire spectrum of opinion. 

Claims of "liberal bias" don't stand up to scrutiny.
    
The great focus of Conservative ire centers on a small fraction of the
programming--the small part that is largely independent documentary.  
Even here, the conservative case cannot be made.  The Center for Media 
& Public Affairs conducted such a study, excluding regular programming, 
like the programs mentioned above. Among the programs excluded were two 
with a conservative slant--Firing Line and American Interests--that are 
underwritten by the Center's biggest funders.
    
Even with the deck stacked like this, traces of bias were hard to find.  
The study analyzed 35,094 program segments, and found "thematic messages 
in only 614 -- just 1.7 percent, most of them concentrated in just a few 
documentaries.  
   
The study argued that PBS has a pacifistic bent--based on 18 segments out 
of 4042--despite the fact that 1309 military personnel appeared as sources.  
    
The study's summary claimed that "Racial discrimination was described as 
a condition of American society 50 times without a single dissenting 
opinion."  But actually, 37 out of 50 segments referred to a former 
condition of US society.  What's more, some of those cited approved of 
segregation or "criticized efforts to increase integration."
 
The study of women's issues covered just 13 segments--out of 35,094--stark
evidence of how little attention was given to women's issues.

3.  Republicans claim it's necessary to help balance the budget.

Response 3a: Balancing the budget is a smokescreen. In 12 years, Reagan &
Bush never introduced a balanced budget.  Since 1981, when Reagan first
introduced higher military budgets & big tax cuts for the rich, the deficit
has quadrupled. From the very beginning, some critics of what George Bush
called "voodoo economics" were said that these deficits were specifically
intended to justify shutting down popular and successful social programs. 
Now the Republicans in Congress are proving those critics correct.

Response 3b: While federal funds are significant for public broadcasters,
they are minuscule compared to the deficit. CPB could be funded for 10 
years just by cutting military programs that the Pentagon itself doesn't 
want--but politicians insist on.  Our military planning is still based 
on the premise of fighting & winning two simultaneous regional wars, 
without allies--something we have never done--or even contemplated--in 
over 200 years. 

Response 3c: Nonetheless, we agree that CPB should not be funded from the
general fund.  It should be funded directly with fees and dedicated taxes 
on the commercial broadcast industry, in return for their use of the 
public airwaves.  That way, politicians seeking to avoid tough choices 
will not be tempted to distract the public with attacks on public media.

4. Republicans claim that it's "welfare for yuppies."

Response:  So we won't hear anything more about cutting the capital 
gains tax, right?  Or vouchers for private schools?  And Newt Gingrich's 
suburban district is going to start paying more in taxes than it gets from 
the US government, right? And interest on home mortgages over $100,000 
won't be tax deductible anymore, right?

It's true that PBS and NPR have failed to adequately serve the poor.  
This is an argument to reform CPB and return it to its original mission.  
Defunding CPB will just make PBS and NPR even less concerned with the 
less-than-affluent citizens than it already is.

5.  Republicans claim that it's wrong for taxpayers to pay for 
programming they don't like.  

Response: This argument is a red herring.  

They don't accept this logic for other government programs.  Why should
environmentalists subsidize the mining and grazing interests that
exploit--even devastate--federal lands in the West?  Why should gays &
lesbians subsidize the military?  Why should any taxpayer pay the salary 
of the cop who gives them a traffic ticket?

6.  But programming is different, they say.  No one should be forced to 
pay for speech they don't agree with.  

Response 6a: This is an argument against all government & the ideal of
citizenship.

So Democrats shouldn't be forced to pay the salaries of Republican
officeholders?  And Republicans shouldn't be forced to pay the salaries 
of Democrats?  Independents--and non-voters--shouldn't have to pay 
anyone's salary? And what about pro-choice taxpayers subsidizing the 
tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church? This claim is, fundamentally, 
a rejection of the republican ideal of citizenship, without which our 
nation would disintegrate.  It would make Bosnia look like a tea-party.

Response 6b: All programming--not just public broadcasting--is paid for 
by people who don't agree with it.  

We pay for commercial programming in the advertising costs of all the
products we buy, regardless of whether we like the programming, have ever
seen it, or even know if it exists.

7.  Republicans claim that public television could pay its own way if it 
did a better job of exploiting the commercial potential of products--as 
in the case of Barney. 

Response 7a: The Republican Congress should do a better job of exploiting 
the commercial potential of the airwaves themselves.  CPB could be 
entirely funded out of taxes and fees on the use of this public resource.

Response 7b: Trying to make money from product-spinoffs directly sabotages
the non-commercial mission of public television.  Commercialization is 
not a solution for public television, its the dissolution of public 
television. The solution is full funding from dedicated taxes and fees 
on commercial radio and television.

8.  Republicans claim that PBS was necessary once--when there were only 
three networks and only a handful of independents in even the largest 
markets--but no longer, with the diversity of choices available on cable 
today.

Response 8a: Bruce Springsteen's Song, "57 Channels and Nothing On."

Response 8b: Cable is not available for many millions of Americans.

Response 8c: The cost of cable is prohibitive for many working families.

Response 8d: A public forum, where different voices and concerns co-exist 
and cross-communicate, can be challenged, but not replaced by a variety 
of specialized niche-programmers.

Response 8e: Public broadcasting wasn't created because of limited choices 
in the marketplace, but because the marketplace itself is necessarily 
limited, even in the age when news departments were run at a loss as part 
of the networks' public mission, and Walter Cronkite and the Huntley-
Brinkley Report competed with the New York Times instead of the National 
Inquirer.  Yet, there was still a need for television to do more, show 
more, be more than commercial television could.

In 1967, The Carnegie Commission Report on Educational Television provided
the foundation on which PBS was built.  This report set forth a three-fold
mandate for public television:
    1) to "help us see America whole, in all its diversity."
    2) to serve "as a forum for controversy and debate."
    3) to "provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise 
       be unheard."

The Carnegie Commission also recommended that public television be funded 
by fees or dedicated taxes on commercial television.  This would avoid
governmental interference and repay the public from the private profit 
being made from a public resource: the airwaves themselves.

Despite exceptional individual programming, PBS has largely failed to 
fulfill that original mandate, precisely because Congress failed to 
provide the financial independence recommended.  Then, under Richard 
Nixon, the current system of corporate underwriting was begun, 
introducing a systemic bias toward the interests and sensibilities of 
the corporate centers of power in our society.

The original need identified by the Carnegie Commission still remains.
Defunding PBS, further undermining its public character, will only 
intensify that need.  CPB should be permanently removed from the budget 
process.  It should be funded entirely by dedicated fees and taxes on 
the commercial industry, as the Carnegie Commission recommended.

9.  Republicans argue that public media should be forced to survive in 
the marketplace--just like anything else.

Response 9a: This formulation depends on slight-of-hand.  There is no
consumer market for radio or television programming. Programming 
attracts viewers, who are then sold to advertisers.  The costs are paid 
by consumers at the check-out stand.  

Response 9b: Republicans invoke the marketplace as a mechanism to give 
people what they want--directly.  But viewers and consumers have no real 
influence over commercial programming.  In fact, commercial broadcasters 
regularly program head-to-head, forcing a particular audience to choose 
between two programs it wants to watch at one time, and giving it nothing 
to watch at another. 

10. Republicans argue that Congress should only spend money in ways that 
are "specifically enumerated" under Article I, Section 8.

Response 10a: Section 8 begins: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide 
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" it 
concludes, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
carrying into Execition the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested 
by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any 
Department or Office thereof."

Reponse 10b:  Congress has used these broad powers--often for 
conservative, pro-business purposes--since the earliest days of our 
Republic.  Examples include: Establishing the US Bank, granting vast 
subsidies to transportation industries: canals, railroads, highways and 
air transport, giving away mineral rights to mining companies, giving 
away public land to homesteaders, preserving public land in national 
parks, establishing the FBI, establishing Social Security, establishing 
the Air Force, passing the GI Bill of Rights, establishing the National 
Institute of Health, establishing NASA & going to the moon, passing 
federal crime bills.... In short, the vast majority of things the 
government has ever done fall under its broad powers to "provide for 
the common Defence and general Welfare."

Response 10c: If Congress has no right to use the broad powers under 
Article 1, Section 8, then it has no right to do anything about the 
electromagnetic spectrum, which of course was unkown at the time.  
Congress cannot even to regulate the use of frequencies.  This means 
anyone can broadcast anything they want to on any frequency they want 
to.  Rupert Murdoch will NOT be pleased.

IN SUMMATION: 

The airwaves are a public resource.  Their use by private profit-making
corporations should be taxed to provide the funding for programming in 
the public interest, which the marketplace of consumers excludes.

The Carnegie Commission Mandate remains imperative.  The Republican 
attempt to defund CPB only drives PBS farther from its original purpose.  
The more PBS tries to appease its conservative critics, the more it 
abandons the only real reason for it to exist.

The Republican's real agenda--whether CPB funding survives or not--is 
to complete the corporate takeover of the airwaves, to erase the last 
vestiges of a public realm that includes more than the marketplace.  The 
current system, with taxpayers & viewers giving money unconditionally, 
and corporations targeting their support, is the exact opposite of what 
it pretends to be.  Instead of public broadcasting with corporate 
underwriting, we have corporate broadcasting with public underwriting.  
Preserving PBS & NPR is not enough--we need to reclaim the original 
mandate and restructure them to put the public back in public 
broadcasting.

[CNI Home Page]