The Future of Public Broadcasting
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-20/future-public-broadcasting
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act into law in 1967, he said its purpose was ‘to enrich man’s spirit.’ The Act established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - and provided funds for educational television and radio. More than four decades later, public broadcasting networks like NPR and PBS have influenced the lives of millions of Americans. But in today's saturated media marketplace, some critics say public broadcasting has outlived both its mandate and the justification for continued public funding. Diane and her guests discuss the future of public broadcasting.
Guests
Vivian Schiller
President and CEO of NPR
Patricia Harrison
President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)
Paula Kerger
President and CEO of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS)
Kevin Brady
U. S. House of Representatives (R-TX)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thanks for not including a panelist from the National Association of Broadcasters. I would be interested in hearing from our FCC commissioners on recent media mergers and the undermining of net neutrality in the near future. Isn't the alternative broadcaster's convention in April or May. Someone should address their agenda too.
Question: Do you think community based independent but subscription supported radio will hurt the finances of NPR? Won't low power radio and podcasting dilute listener support?
Question: Has NPR felt any impact from satellite radio where Bob Edwards is on every day and Bob Dylan has his own channel?
Question: How is corporate underwriting shifting the editorial content of NPR news and public affairs? I don't think the shift can be denied.
I trust Diane and producers to handle this subject matter without being unduely promotional.
I just want to say how important it is to keep public radio. Without NPR, we're stuck with mostly commercially slanted biases in the news reporting. The regular stations can't present the news without spiinning it and that gets to be so tiresome. I love the Diane Rehm show for the purest presentation of the issues without mucking up the waters. As consumers, we need this alternative. I hate regular news on other stations. The talk shows are all biased depending on the moderator.
It is so very important that NPR continues to do exactly what it has been doing for all these years. I'm canadaian and if it wasn't for public broadcasting I would have to search the net to try to find some truth about most issues. In my mind only NPR & PBS do a great job of educating the populous and helping people make informed and intelligent decisions. We know the GOP has made this threat before simply because it is in their best interest to mislead and misinform the electorate. They know if they told the country what their real agenda is they would never see power. I don't believe for one second that the GOP cares about the vast majority of people in the U.S. They are beholden to their corporate masters. The GOP even came to Canada trying to derail us from having single payer health care. The republicans are selfish and irresponsible and will do what ever it takes to keep the U.S. from moving forward. Obama instead of saying God bless America should say God help America.
I was there at the beginning and have been a lifelong listener, financial supporter and volunteer for Public Broadcasting. However, I strongly support cutting Public Broadcasting free from tax support, both at the state and the federal levels.
The bold experiment begun in the Johnson years has proved wildly successful. We have all proved that PUBLICLY financed endeavors need not be perpetually TAX financed endeavors, that good ideas, nurtured and supported in the beginning can flower and have value and gain following & support all on their own.
It should be a point of pride & accomplishment that Public Broadcasting no longer needs tax support and it should be a mark of gratitude & honor that we voluntarily give up our place at the public trough as part of the national reevaluation of all the programs, tax breaks and incentives we fund without end.
So, how much money comes from government subsidies vs. viewer contributions and private underwriters? What are the percentages? I suppose George Soros would make sure NPR doesn't fold.
Believe me, I love NPR and have been a contributor for more than 20 years; however, as a protest, I didn't this year due to the firing of Juan Williams.
I do see attempts, esp. on Diane's show, to try to present both sides of the political landscape. On the other hand, I also detect a definite liberal bias from most commentators and hosts.
Except for the DR Show, NPR has and is merging with commercial broadcasting. Public broadcasting means appealing to the public for self interest, not civic and community interest necessary for true democracy, government of, by and for the people. I listen/view mainly to see how much further right the programs tilt. And yell at the crap being feed to listeners with no recourse available.
We need a fairness doctrine with teeth and Edward R. Murrow. The public domain belongs to the public. Perhaps the public should take charge.
Good for you, Rick.
I agree that people like you could keep PBS and NPR alive without direct federal funding, but what about content?
What scares me is the growing influence of corporate underwriting.
The BBC owes all its editorial independence to tax payer funding.
Public broadcasting will continue to be attacked by it's opponents using the courts, the FCC and other agencies (intelligence agencies too) even without tax appropriations.
Some people don't profit from dissemination of the truth. Selfish economic considerations mean they can't handle it.
I don’t have cable anymore so I can’t speak of PBS’ competition. But in most of the country, there IS no alternative to NPR. Radio journalism and intelligent discussion and analysis are virtually non-existent outside of NPR and its affiliates (with the exception of the BBC which is also available to most of the country thanks to public radio). And with the increasing consolidation and homogenization in what passes for commercial radio, NPR affiliates are often the only real local radio available in much of the country.
Hi Diane,
I'd prefer to remain anonymous for obvious reasons! I worked at a public radio station for 33 years, ending up making just over $50K a year--which I felt was a fair salary. A couple of years ago the station asked several veteran employees to takes a retirement package. Still OK. My only beef is that while the employees were being let go, the CEO was making about 300K and took no reduction in pay. Apparently my city isn't the only one where some public radio employees are making excessive salaries. This is an AP article:
MARSHALL, Minn. - Minnesota Public Radio, in the middle of one of its regular fund drives for listener contributions, has so far turned down a lot of money from the state of Minnesota.
State Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, said MPR has refused $380,000 in state appropriations in the current fiscal biennium. He said Tuesday that MPR's stance is in response to a new law requiring them to make a public list of the wages of all positions that pay more than $100,000.
..... MPR, like other nonprofits, must disclose many compensation details in federal tax return forms that are available to the public. The forms list names and salaries of the five highest-paid employees and of officers or trustees.
On the 2004 tax return, MPR listed the names and salaries of 13 officers or trustees, 12 of whom earned more than $100,000. Kling received $326,700 in salary, pension and benefits, and incentive compensation at MPR. He earns roughly an additional $218,000 from American Public Media Group, the parent company of MPR.
The top five highest-paid employees earned from $117,845 to $174,040, plus benefits and deferred compensation.
Perhaps your guests would care to comment on this?
Cheers,
Randy
"Public radio" includes a good deal more than NPR. PRI, APM and others are also producers of terrific content. Switching (as I have) to satellite radio (in place of TV, which I got rid of 9 or 10 years ago with great pleasure and relief!) and using pod casting as a backup, "public radio" has become an indispensable service, particularly at a time when we risk drowning in "spout 'n' shout" media.
Public radio represents the cultural liberalism that prevails in America, even among conservatives, while taking pains to avoid political partisanship. The firing of Juan Williams was a very good decision. Williams, once a terrific reporter, had begun to adapt the combative, rude style of Fox's reactionary reporting. Right/left toxicity and sharpness just doesn't belong on public radio.
I hope public radio can find a way to end dependence on government funding as a practical matter. As a matter of principle and pride, America should continue to have a first-rate public media that remains as even-handed as NPR has. But as a practical matter, public radio's stability demands an irrevocable trust fund provided by citizens without intervention from an unreliable Congress.
I suspect this will mean adding fees to content. As someone now on a diminishing retirement income, I dread it. But I also believe it's the way to go. We now have access, after all, to an extraordinary range of public radio broadcasting through our computers and our satellite receivers. The more, the merrier. Instead of contributing to my local affiliate (which I dropped because the quality of both reception and content), I send nickels and dimes -- whatever I can -- to those affiliates and producers who are doing a stellar job.
@Rep. Brady: If cutting federal funding to PBS is so important why not cut federal funding (via tax cuts, etc.) to all radio/TV companies and any other business that receives any kind of federal aid?
The problem with NPR is they are a liberal propaganda news outlet. So steeped in political correctness to be ridiculous at times. The Diane Rehm Show and the Here and Now show are the worst offenders for liberal bias in the coverage of news events. I have no problem with this in general but please, No public funds should be used to spread a big government message.
Monte: could you provide a couple of clear examples of liberal bias in those two shows?
The conversation going on right now is completely one sided. Where is an apposing view. GIVE ME A BREAK!
tarascon, I listen almost everyday and like the show, but tell me please name ONE government welfare program that Diane does not support. I will donate to NPR when federal funds are eliminated.
NPR and PBS make us laugh and make us cry.
I have been listening to WGBH in Boston since the 1950's.
But the time is over for public funding. Bring back classical music to NPR to save some money (get that Karl Haas series "Adventures in Good Music," which NPR used to broadcast.)
In NH there is a bill to eliminate State Funding of 2 million for our only PBS station. It will be difficult, but members will weigh in and save it.
Sorry, but GET OVER IT! The Fed and State funding will soon DISAPPEAR.
PLAN NOW for it. You had a wonderful run but TIMES CHANGE. (And Juan Williams did not help your cause!)
I have a pet peeve with NPR: I live in Panama City Fl. Our local NPR (WkGC) is faltering for lack of funds. However, for more than 10 or 15 yrs. we've received the Tallahassee NPR very clearly through a repeater tower. (Tallahassee is 100 miles away)
Yet, for years both stations often broadcasted the SAME shows at the SAME time period. I contacted them to tell them this was foolish, that it wasted money.
Another thing - PBS has so much competition. For example, my cable TV has TWO history channels which are very good (also Nat. Geographic, discovery...).
A problem I sometimes have with PBS programs is that they pre-determine that they will fill a certain 1 hr. program with a particular topic. However, often things are so "dragged out" that perhaps a half hr would have been the appropriate amount of time for that topic.
Would someone please put Vivian Schiller out of her misery? I've been a listener/supporter of NPR from the very beginning, but this woman is an embarrassment to the quality and tradition of the network. She cannot put a coherent sentence together; her defense of how Juan Williams was handled is preposterous and does not address the obvious issue at hand.
We need clear-spoken and articulate leadership at NPR if it is to survive the politics of a nation that has been shifting to the Right for the past 15+ years...
comment--question re Patricia Harrison's citing $1.35 per person. Is this per viewer per year, or per captia over some other period of time? I'm listening (I am a member of KBIA in Columbia MO) and just want to understand what the amount Ms. Harrison cited in comparison to UK etc meant... Thanks
Vicki Schildmeyer
Jefferson City, MO
Range of views? Then why the ban on the art and media revolution, all its music, lit, art, film, etc. - all its advocacy groups, all its major artists, PLUS any fair comment on NPR's puff arts coverage, revenue sharing deals (payola?) or any other real arts industry coverage.
Then add that almost all the news is conflict news - "Never-can-be-resolved" conflict news coverage: Democrats versus Republicans, Arab/Israeli, White/Black, USA/Russia, or Extremists, or China, etc. What's left out are reasonable solutions .
Finally add the fact that NPR refuses to sign the media's Human Decency Pledge. This and much more suggests NPR has a very very narrow view on arts, news, and media responsibility.
Dear Diane,
I hope you continue to broadcast this problem until it goes away permanently.
In a time when the American Public is suffering far worse than any state or federal budget, I am amazed that a conservative philosophy feels so threatened that it must try to remove the one possible remaining public communication system that could be some people's last form of outside communication with the world, simply because of the price, ie. cable is getting way too expensive and public broadcasting is the only way out.
Why shouldn't public funding go to public broadcasting....it is for us, the public. And half of the public is of the liberal philosophy so leave us our half of the funding.
This talk frightens me that my voice and my only independent source of information will be taken away and we will be left with only conservative talk shows and news programs.
A more effective monetary cut would be the exorbitant salaries and perks of our politicians who persist in fighting over their own personal agendas and getting nothing done with our hard earned tax dollars.
I thoroughly enjoy National Public Radio. From time to time, however, I shift to other stations to listen to a wide variety of music. Yesterday, while listening to a Detroit-based radio station, the message given between songs when something like this. "Our broadcasts are office and child friendly. We will not play music which is offensive. We will not broadcast advertising which is inappropriate for children." Why don't more stations adopt this policy?
Public Broadcasting is well worth preserving - and should be a priority. It offers the most intelligent and well-rounded information and entertainment. Notice most of those who want it to no longer be funded are conservatives who, in my view, tend toward the further anti-intellectualism we are seeing around the country.
NPR Radio is the only station that comes in clear in my little town of Athens, Ohio; so I do not want it to disappear. The music programming at night and weekends is superb and varied. I hear most of the daytime talk shows and while Diane's is the most balanced, the others have a strong bias towards atheism and the Democratic Party. Why not mix up your talk shows with hosts with other biases. Since humans are not capable of thinking without bias, let's abandon the facade of objectivity.
NPR and PBS probably have the highest Demographic of all listeners.
Americans are the most generous people on earth.
We who love more about NPR and PBS than dislike, will vote with our checkbooks to save it.
End public funding and see people step up to the plate. If they don't. look to yourself.
PBS & NPR Washington Elites are soon to get their feathers trimmed.
Good segment, but it's disappointing to hear the president of the CPB speaking in typical American biz-hyperbole-speak ("...public radio plays a very critical, important role...", "...is an incredible resource..."). I'd like to see radio professionals strive to be better stewards of the English language rather than contribute to its decay.
this discussion is absurd.
why say across the board cuts of 1% for federal line items of less than a billion dollars so everyone can share the pain
and
across the board cuts of, say 5% on federal line items of more than a billion dollars...
that would come a lot closer to balancing the budget than targeting minute line items like npr and nea and the other popular targets...
how about one less F whatever for the air force that costs more than the total npr budget?
sheesh
See extremely well-researched 2005 article here on Kenneth Tomlinson and the effort to defund public broadcasting, which reveals Patricia Harrison's history with spinning information on behalf of Republicans: http://oneperson-knowmore.blogspot.com/2005/06/know-bush-fact-46-tomlins...
NPR and PBS receives such a small amount of the percentage of the federal budget. I am shocked and dismayed that there is any serious consideration for further cutting funding or eliminating funding. Over the last two decades, the federal funding has continually decreased--it has never been increased to my knowledge. Please identify the exact percentage of our federal budget for our listeners.
It's absurd to say that the United States of America can't afford to support public broadcasting. We are still an incredibly rich nation. The extension of the Bush tax cuts alone could have made the difference. Progressive taxation was an accepted and successful way of funding our country in the past and could be again. You should be rejecting the premises of politicians who come claiming poverty.
Jim, in Fishers, Indiana
Even IF Juan's firing was in error - defunding the entire shebang due to that one thing is a baby - bath water thing
Let's face it - This is a campaign by The Right to get back at a voice of the center as the whole nation loses its mind as deep changes are afoot in the nation at large.
THIS IS The Fair & Balanced voice today.
Thank you very much.