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.
I find the idea of cutting public broadcasting quite startling, kind of like cutting defences during time of war, and I would surely question the motives behind this.
I would like to have asked the congressman how he would feel about taking a 15% cut in pay, about cutting 15% of goverenmant fat insted of 15% of public needs.
For this congressman, and any other PUBLIC sevent, to suggest to the public, (his employer) that they need to change the choices they make inorder to solve the problem goverenment created seems a bit insulting.
The public is already doing more for less, or hasn't he heard. So I say to the congressman YOU need to do more for less, or, just do the job your getting paid for, serving the American people.
"thousands of options for information" please, there's only one Diane Rehm.
"It should be a point of pride & accomplishment that Public Broadcasting no longer needs tax support "
With all due respect, without public funding, it ceases to be public broadcasting.
Recognizing the positions and roles of your guests on this important broadcast, I found them to be an embarassment. They failed to give answers to questions, especially the Juan Williams questions you posed. Their response to the comments of the Rep. from Texas were innocous.
I expected to gain an understanding of the future of CPB, and instead found myself listening to three politicians waffle serious issues.
I know the quality of CPB, and expected to hear some kind of plan of action for the future attack from Congress to defund, but instead heard nothing I can remember.
The quality of their presence was an embarrassment to CPB for my wife and I who have been listening and watching for 25-30 years.
I love public broadcasting and do not want it to shrink or go away.
I ask the question to the senator and others why do you talk of saving our children with the debt and in the same breath taking away children’s education and thus any future of having knowledge to figure out you have done to them/us.
And to punish a huge public intuition and not huge corporations who increase interest rates as they feel, who go the states which will not tax them, even though they clam under the 13th amendment to be a person with all the rights of a person but gets out of paying equal taxes. This is the down fall of America to privatize everything so individuals, (corporations) can make money. Leaving the people accrual people behind to be subjected to them and not subjects of our United States.
Once again ostensibly because of budget issues the moving finger points to public broadcasting with it's relatively small outlay from taxpayers as "seed money". I think of all the weaponry that money could have been used for(half billion more or less). We absolutely have to have that instead!
I could not believe my ears listening to how easily and callously Kevin Brady would dispense with funding and allow the public broadcasting system to turn into something else- another commercial, corporate run media system. Already commercials are creeping into PBS and NPR allowing more and more time and message for those underwriting their "announcements". Take all funding away and complete the transition.
If that happens why should we listeners continue to support our stations?
Brady, I am sorry to say, is totally lost about why we have public broadcasting. His fellow Texan LBJ certainly knew why the need as represented in the quote read on the air. But Texas was not in the grip of right wing politics back then, nor was this country.
That this is about the budget, I don't believe Brady. Even if it were, it would be penny wise and pound foolish. Cuts like this help devolve us into a country of citizens who are ignorant and uncultured. It's no more about the budget than tax cuts for the richest of us are. I rather believe that he, like many others really believe that this a necessary part of the war against the liberal media, a war against those they resent as elites.
The other guests are right- that it is we out here who must guard against this attempt to eradicate PBS and NPR. I look to them not to be intimidated by these threats either when they make decisions about content and in their defense in Congress.
Finally, I was happy to see Juan Williams fired. He seemed to have crossed a fine line, no longer representing the quality associated with NPR. He is a much better fit for Fox.
It is truly "amazing" - I listened to GOP Rep from Texas, Kevin Brady, explaining why it was necessary to cut $400 million Fed $$ from NPR and Center for Public Broadcasting on the Diane Rehm's show this morning (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-20/future-public-broadcasting). He said we all have to suffer cutbacks.
But see this story in today's Arizona Daily Star:
http://azstarnet.com/article_c65f4b68-2425-11e0-91a2-001cc4c002e0.html
Time for the public welfare ranchers to belly up to the bar. Seems like the Obama Administration is just too busy to cut some serious waste of Federal $$ way out west (see the attached letters from FS and BLM linked to the article).
Larry in Salmon, Idaho
Was it Congressman Brady who said 90% of the US gets Public Broadcasting? That can't be true of NPR. When I drove from Miami to St. Louis on I24, I57 and I54 and the Florida Turnpike there were many areas where I could not find NPR. In rural Tennessee, Kentucky and Illinois for many miles the only programs available were a Bible station or Rush Limbaugh.
One thing that rarely seems to be brought out is that even if there is an NPR station broadcasting it may not carry Diane Rehm or many of the shows DR listeners probably would look for. Do all NPR stations even carry the news?
If there are not people in the area willing to work to get programs on the air, i.e. to work to raise money for them, NPR or many important programs will not be broadcast. A friend in Buffalo, New York, (Where one of the benefits when I worked there was CBC ie. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) says she cannot get the Diane Rehm show.
If you have another program on Public Broadcasting perhaps someone could say more about the work citizen groups do the get the station started and to keep it going. My guess is that many rural areas simply do not have enough people, or wealthy enough people, to support NPR.
And, has anyone done a study of listeners' ability to distinguish statements of bias and statements of fact? My guess is that people steeped in radio of the far right are so used to accepting that bias as fact that statements of fact sound to them like bias of the left .
I have been a HUGE supporter of public radio for several decades and I will continue to do so. It is a great source of good information in our nation and, as the years progress, and the vast conservative conspiracy errodes the minds of the everyday Americans, we need you more than ever. (I annually contribute to the local on-air fund raiser as well.) You did well to jettison Juan Williams, as he turned out to be a vicious wolf in disguise...see how he now bows to the false gods of the almighty dollar. Just disregard the criticism, consider the source and you'll see there is no value in it.
After living in Europe for nearly 17 years, you still have a way to go to achieve a truly world view, but here in the states, you are one of the most important resources for the educated, the open minded, and those hungry for real news coverage that lends to improved critical thinking and remains outside of the nonsense that is spewed out for consumption by the conservative controlled media. Never give up and remember: you have millions of good ears in tune everyday.
To pjreiter@charter.net above.....you have a point. I was thinking of that too, though once or twice there was a little backbone- there was much waffling and dissembling. I had the fear they were going to cave in because of their own fears... but it is we who will suffer the consequences.
Today's show, fielding Public Broadcasting leadership was distressing.
I was expecting a higher caliber group of individuals. Even with a completly open platform for their position, they could only manage a defensive, low level rhethoric, tangled in run on thoughts.
Their concious avoidance or inability to answer specific questions being being put to them was alarming. This performance wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector boardrooms I've been privy to.
The question is not whether Public Broadcasting should be publicly funded - 0f course it should.
The larger question after today's program is whether the current steward this vital national treasure, are putting it at risk under their poor leadership.
Vivian Schiller and Patricia Harrison are passing stewards of our vital american institutions. NPR can do better . . . and must before we lose this enterprise.
Perhaps the Board can help to replace them . . . if not advocate de-funding with your Congressman and Senators.
Today's show, fielding Public Broadcasting leadership was distressing.
I was expecting a higher caliber group of individuals. Even with a completly open platform for their position, they could only manage a defensive, low level rhethoric, tangled in run on thoughts.
Their concious avoidance or inability to answer specific questions being being put to them was alarming. This performance wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector boardrooms I've been privy to.
The question is not whether Public Broadcasting should be publicly funded - 0f course it should.
The larger question after today's program is whether the current steward this vital national treasure, are putting it at risk under their poor leadership.
Vivian Schiller and Patricia Harrison are passing stewards of our vital american institutions. NPR can do better . . . and must before we lose this enterprise.
Perhaps the Board can help to replace them . . . if not advocate de-funding with your Congressman and Senators.
Love Diane Rehm
Love NPR
But, Vivian still needs to be fired!
This is a very interesting and complicated subject. I, for one, listen to NPR regularly since i commute daily and love NPR. It really adds to the quality of my life. On the other hand $430 million from the US Government in what is basically seed money is huge. I find it amazing that Congress is focussed on NPR and not PBS. I rarely watch PBS.
I understand the position about informing the American populus and providing pre-school education to children, but who is really watching PBS between 9 am and 4 pm?
I stayed up late tonight and got to watch Tavis Smiley and Charlie Rose. Why not license those shows to one of the other 1,000 media outlets that are in dire need of content? We need public TV and radio but the model is outdated.
From what I heard from the panel today it was all about protecting the status quo. There is opportuiny here to avoid the tyranny of the "or" and embrace the genious of the "and."
I should have called.
Mike
Great show
I am a long time supporter of The Diane Rehm show, and NPR. I believe the service you provide is both necessary and invaluable. I applaud the decision to fire Juan Williams, and I hope you will continue to demand that your journalists behave with civility and integrity in the public forum. NPR is a beacon, and serves as an outstanding example to other news organizations on how to perform the balancing act of presenting the news in a manner that is both accurate and entertaining. You typically avoid the sensationalism and speculation that obscure reality. I hope you will hold fast to your values; those who claim that there is a left-leaning bias at NPR may be squeaky wheels, but they do not represent the majority in public opinion.
AGREE! Michael Copps, come on over.
One more point. Employers generally may and do discharge (fire) anyone for any and no reason. Why should Juan be an exception? And of course there are those pesky bad government restrictions of race, religion, etc.
I would love Americans to understand that whereas America is viewed with an exceptionally jaundiced eye by much of the rest of the world, because the very worst of your culture is what is chiefly exported, NPR serves as a superb balance to this negative view. I live in Africa, and I listen to NPR daily via satellite radio, and I would not miss it for the world. (I am not American). NPR is the very best face of America, and my own very negative views have changed as a result of it. If NPR was freely available world-wide you would have more friends, fewer enemies, and you could cut your obscene military budget.
The whine that NPR is liberal lefty in its programming is ridiculous - America has no left wing that I can see, just a centre, a centre-right and a far-right.
To the funders - please know that this is the best, cheapest diplomacy you could ever dream of.
I used to love NPR. Like the first caller on the show on Wednesday, I grew up on public radio. Unfortunately, the network has developed a liberal bias. Being liberal, you would think I would be happy. I am sad because I covet objectivity. I am most upset of the deniability of Vivian Schiller President and CEO of NPR. Whenever I hear her, all she does is profess the balanced reporting at NPR. Until the NPR Board of Directors recognizes that, she is the problem we will lose our funding from the Federal Government. Maybe it is too late for her to wake up from her defensive posturing and look at reality. For her to continue to defend HER actions of how Juan Williams was terminated just adds gas on the fire of those who need a rallying point to remove public funding from public radio. In addition, when public funding is gone, the money in this county (other than the George Soros types) will not contribute due to the bias. Please NPR Board wake up and understand the problem is Vivian Schiller President and CEO of NPR
Being a long supporter of Public Radio and the Diane Rehm show, in an otherwise most informative show, I was most disappointed by the discussion of the firing of Juan Williams.
I could understand why NPR's Ms. Schiller would want to 'move on' and not really address the reasons for and politics behind this unfortunate event. It is not sufficient only to say the NPR Board commissioned a legal analysis which said the firing was 'legal' as it was based upon unspecified NPR Policy. Many questions remain: why was an NPR VP fired over it, and the Ms. Schiller denied a normal bonus, if such actions were 'legal"? Did Ms. Schiller (and other management) know of and approve of such action. Have such policies been changed or "clarified" or are there ongoing discussions to do so?
I would ask Ms. Schiller (and the DR show) to make public at least the summary of the NPR Board's investigation of the event, and allow Mr. Williams (and possibly the public?) the opportunity publicly to comment on it.
This is a very important is to the future of Public Broadcasting and cannot be simply be "swept under the rug."
In my 40 yrs, I have seen cable come and expand. Channels shot from 7 to 1400. Discovery, A&E and TLC tried to be the new "pbs". It failed. Now these channels very rarely have anything educational to watch.
What troubles me is how complacent everyone is about freedom. Freedom of the press, freedom of religion ect. These are huge concepts that really truely separate us from history. They are worth preserving and fighting for. If folks really want to leave it to msnbc/fox...wow.....we learned nothing.
cyclebear
why did you not stay in Europe? Never heard that the news media is controlled by conservatives in the US. I thought it was the opposite.
Heard and read that lady who headed NPR was fired. One of the most bias persons according to Juan Williams.
First, in 2011, the Arizona shootings and now U.S. Congresspersons proposing to "de-fund Public Broadcasting...":
More poignant evidence that the U.S.'s mental health system is broken and that a country-wide inquiry into services for the mentally ill- including Congresspersons- is needed!!!
Mr Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
I heard this show when it was being broadcase -and that caused me to do a little research that made for some interesting reading here: http://zzoottland.blogspot.com/2011/02/future-of-public-broadcasting.html
I listened to this as a podcast and am brought to comment. I am a many decade supporter of NPR and PBS through local stations. I also give to stations such as WAMU to support valuable podcasting.
That being said, I was generally disappointed in the panelists. Their answers to questions were often evasive as if they had lawyers whispering in their ears. I couldn't help how often they sounded like politicians. One panelist said, "Let me reframe the question." and then proceeded to totally avoid Diane's query.
I agree with some others that Vivian Schiller of NPR completely avoided Dian'e Juan Williams question. She was abysmal at answering questions and discussing the value of NPR. Ms. Schiller should NOT be the one representing NPR at Congressional hearings.
If I was a US Representative, who believed in public broadcasting, faced with voting to continue to support it, I would to vote against it if the Congressional testimony resembles today's discussion on The Diane Rehm Show.
I'm stumped. I just watched the twelve-minute video. The folks secretly making the tape lie every time they open their mouths; Schiller speaks truthfully and accurately throughout.
How is Schiller's behavior a punishable offense? How is the scammers' behavior NOT punishable?
I listen to the Diane Rehm Show almost every day- even with my children protesting in the background. I enjoy NPR for its thoroughness of each and every topic. It is thought provoking and is my preferred news source. That being said, I do consider myself to be politically conservative. I find NPR to be more liberally slanted though not to the degree of the slant of print journalism and the cable news sources. I don't know why NPR or other liberal entities are so afraid to be considered to be biased. Why should conservative groups feel threatened? I have enough confidence in my ability to make a good and thoughtful judgement, that the ideas and concerns of others do not threaten me, but rather, challenge me to think of how we can settle our differences for the good of all. The great thing about a free and democratic society is that we are free to take whatever information is distributed and form our own opinions. It is one thing to have a disagreement of opinion or how to go about something, but why is there such bitterness. Inflammatory language never does anything to resolve an issue or promote a positive outcome.
As for the issue of NPR catering to a more elite group of citizens, I think that there is some truth to that statement, otherwise, it would appeal to a broader base of people. I don't think that it is necessary to "dumb" down programming for ratings, but let's call a spade a spade.
yes i would like to see public continue on also. i think npr is a civil voice in an increasingly uncivil world,plus they bring us programs that are relevant and entertaining regardless of what your politics are. and their correspondents are some of the brightest well informed people in broadcasting bar none.