Sarah Elichko Policy Recommendation Paper Info Policy Spring 2010 Whats So Liberal About Sesame Street?

: Public Television Controversies Depending on whom one asks, public television offers an example of government waste, a beacon of well-researched journalism in a sea of commercial infotainment, a bastion of elitist programming that ignores ordinary people, a valuable educational resource for Americans of all ages, or the place to watch dull documentaries. While the election of President Barack Obama promised to remove public broadcasting from the federal chopping block, advocates still face continuing and new challenges. On April 30th, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission conducted a hearing on the future of public media. In order to evaluate these proposals, we must first understand the major problems faced by public broadcasting advocates. Congressional stakeholders have differed widely in their views on the necessity and propriety of federal funding for public television. Critics question the objectivity of public affairs programs on public networks, with some (particularly on the right) claiming that PBS stations offer left-wing politics and elitist cultural programming. From its inception, American public broadcasting has been charged with a somewhat paradoxical mission: to abide by strict adherence to objectivity and balance while also remaining accountable to the public via the federal government (Dvorkin & Stavitsky, 3). Public media is supposed to remain independent from partisan influence, yet the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is appointed by the White House. Since 1976, CPB funding has been determined through Congressional appropriations two years in advance. This policy attempts to insulate broadcasters from scrutiny of programming during the budget process (CPB Appropriations History). Many political challenges have been launched to exert control over public broadcasting. These efforts have largely focused around a perceived liberal bias to public affairs programming shown on public networks, an image bolstered by using the image of PBS as an institution catering to the cultural interests of elites. Nixon, Reagan, and George W Bush each took steps to rein in the problems they perceived. Recently, political conflict on public broadcasting has centered around leadership of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees PBS. Each member of the CPB Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Board members serve six year terms and appoint the President and CEO, who in turn appoint other officers (CPB Leadership). One of the most controversial examples of appointments is Kenneth Tomlinson, who President George W. Bush appointed as head of the CPB Board of Directors in September 2000

(Labaton et al 2005). Tomlinson has hired others with strong partisan leanings to the CPB staff and board, such as the director of the White House Office of Global Communications, whom Tomlinson hired as a senior staff member early in 2005. One particularly controversial appointment was Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (Labaton et al 2005). Harrison was appointed as the corporations president and chief executive. Concerned by his perception of Bill Moyers (show) as excessively critical of President Bush, Tomlinson hired an outside consultant to investigate Moyers show for evidence of political bias. Tomlinson received much criticism for the secretive manner in which this investigation was conducted. Many other right-wing critics have characterized public broadcasting as an elitist institution that is, therefore, undeserving of federal funding. David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, put forth this view during the 2005 appropriations hearings for the CPB. Boaz argued public broadcasting is welfare for the richthe audiences for PBS and NPR are the best educated, most professional, richest audiences in broadcasting. Their cultural programming reflects elite tastesI think that we upper middle class people should pay for our own entertainment (2005 p. 334). Boaz concludes that federal funding should be eliminated because programming is elitist. He uses the compelling notion that federal funding shouldnt pay for entertainment for the wealthy, offering a clear example of the power of image in these debates. However, the second Carnegie Corporation meeting (1979) argued that corporate funding had undoubtedly skewed the total [PBS] schedule in the direction of cultural programs which are popular among the upscale audiences that corporations prefer (quoted in Bettelheim 1999, 942). This report suggests that increased public funding may promote more diverse programming by reducing the need for public network programming to respond to profit-seeking interests. Regardless of whether public network programming is elitist, demographic data indicates that the gap between PBS viewers and average Americans is smaller than public broadcasting opponents suggest. 32.3% of the PBS audience is comprised of college graduates, versus 29.1% of the American population. 12.2% of Americans are Black, in comparison to 12.1% of the PBS audience. 21.8% of American households have an income between $20-39,999, while 21.0% of the PBS audience falls into this category. 42.1% of American households and 44.7% of the PBS audience fall into the $60,000+ category (PBS Jan. 2010). Public broadcasting critics charges of elitism have some basis in reality, but these arguments reflect relatively small demographic differences between the public broadcasting audience and average Americans. Furthermore, in Wildmans piece in the American Prospect, American University communications professor Patricia Aufderheide characterizes support for public television as really bipartisanAmerican viewers, many of whom are conservative but who like

quality television, or dont want Masterpiece Theatre taken away, or like Nova and actively like it and feel insulted by commercial television (Wildman 2005, 12). Meanwhile, critics on the left have attacked what they see as undue corporate and political influence over programming decisions. Both Moyers and Bettelheim (CQ Researcher) cite a study by Vassar sociologist William Hoynes, who found that PBS public affairs programs featured the standard set of elite news sources typically found on commercial networks (Moyers 2005, 7; Bettelheim 1999, 935). A 2000 study by political scientists Kerbel, Apee, and Ross found that PBS coverage of the 1996 presidential election featured the same horse race and strategy frame as commercial broadcasts (Kerbel, Apee, and Ross, 2000). Some stakeholders have used the similarity argument to claim that federal funding for public television is unnecessary. They argue that public broadcasting competes with commercial interests and could survive without federal funding. In response to these claims, stakeholders who defend federal funding have made the case for public broadcastings unique characteristics. These stakeholders have argued that public broadcastings noncommercial status enables it to promote a variety of programs that would be impossible in a for-profit setting. Furthermore, CPB leadership has argued that federal funding for public television is a good value since federal payments trigger matching state and private grants (Bettelheim 1999, 934). These advocates also point out that many commercial industries got their start with heavy federal investment, saying it took the federal government 30 years of tax-based investing before the Internet was even thought of as a potential commercial vehicle (Bettelheim 1999, 934). In contrast to conservative calls for the elimination of federal funding, many advocates on the left have proposed establishing a more stable and independent source of funding for public media. Free Press in particular has led the efforts to establish an endowment of $50 billion to support public broadcasting. These stakeholders argue that an endowment would depoliticize the funding process and increase the freedom of public broadcasters to produce interesting, cutting-edge, and controversial material. I concur with Free Press regarding the necessity of a stable and less politicized funding source. The two year advance appropriations process has not protected public television from scrutiny in the manner in which it was intended. Furthermore, the relatively small amount of federal money currently allocated to public broadcasting requires heavy reliance upon state budgets. Such uncertainty makes it difficult for public broadcasters to plan ahead and make smart decisions for the future of their networks. A secure federal trust, perhaps funded through a small tax on electronic devices, should be established. Furthermore, perceptions of political bias in public television should be addressed by

increasing public participation in producing content. PBS has already taken a major step by introducing Local Journalism Centers, which focus on providing ordinary Americans the tools they need to express their views. Concerted efforts to select programming from many diverse viewpoints will also assist in addressing bias concerns. My proposals for improving the future of public media are as follows: - Establish secure federal funding for public broadcasting, ideally through a trust fund but alternately through increased appropriations. - In order to address the issues of bias and objectivity, provide targeted funding for increasing public participation in the production of public media. Initiatives like the Local Journalism Centers can help reduce any tendency towards an elitist slant by providing ordinary Americans with the tools they need to express their views through public media. These initiatives address conservatives fear of a left-wing bias coming from federal employees, while also addressing liberals fear of a bias towards official sources.

Works Cited Bettelheim, A. (1999). Public broadcasting. CQ Researcher, 9 (41). 929-952. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). CPB Appropriations History. Retrieved from: http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). CPB Leadership. Retrieved from: http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board/ Dvorkin, J.A. & Stavitsky, A.G. (2008). Public Media: Journalism when government supports the enterprise. White paper retrieved from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/whitepapers/ Kerbel, M.R., Apee, S. & Ross, M.H. (2000). PBS Aint So Different: Public Broadcasting, Election Frames, and Democratic Empowerment. Press/Politics, 5(4). 8-32. Labaton, S., Manly, L., & Jensen, E. (May 2, 2005). Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html Moyers, B. (2005). A Crumbling Firewall. Television Quarterly 36(1). 4-15. PBS. (Jan. 2010). The Public Television Audience. PBS Corporate Facts. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp_audience.html Silver, J., Strayer, L., & Clement, C. (2010). Public Medias Moment. In: Free Press. Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age. Retrieved from: http://www.freepress.net/files/changing_media.pdf US Senate. Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. (2005). Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006. Retrieved from GPO Access. Wildman, S. (June 19, 2005). Tune In, Turn On, Fight Back. The American Prospect. Retrieved from: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tune_in_turn_on_fight_back