CIPB In the News Archive: July 19, 2000

Promoting Public Broadcast Reform: Conversational Strategies
(July 19, 2000)
By Jerold Starr

The Washington, D.C.-based Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting (CIPB) was launched on November 19, 1999, with a press conference televised by C-Span. I currently serve as CIPB Executive Director. The events and concerns that propelled me into this role are told in my book, "Air Wars: The Fight to Reclaim Public Broadcasting," published by Beacon Press in May. The book covers a lot of ground, from an overview of the increasingly concentrated corporate-controlled media system, to the broken promise of the public broadcasting "alternative," to CIPB's innovative plan to restructure public broadcasting as an independently funded public trust. "Air Wars" also provides inspirational stories of the creative actions by citizens in several cities working to make their local public-broadcasting service more community responsive.

"Air Wars"' most extensive narrative concerns my Pittsburgh community's successful effort to block a deal that would have turned over popular public-TV station WQEX to a right-wing ministry called Cornerstone TeleVision. This story became national news with revelations of presidential candidate John McCain's influence-peddling with the FCC on behalf of Paxson Communications and, more recently, with the U.S. House resolution to remove educational programming as a requirement for holding a reserved, noncommercial educational license. Publisher's Weekly launched the book with a very favorable review, comparing it to the film "The Insider" as an exposé and calling it "a model of American idealism and community organizing."

In recent weeks I have been touring the country to organize chapters of CIPB. This effort has been enhanced by book discussions and signings at bookstores across the country, so far including Boston, Bangor (Maine), Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh with future visits planned for San Francisco, Chicago and other cities. Wherever I have gone, I also have done local talk radio and TV shows.

A teacher by training, I have developed some strategies for addressing the questions and comments I get from the various people I encounter. When you put the bookstore folks together with the talk-radio hosts and callers, you get a pretty mixed bag. For example, after concluding my presentation at a Washington, D.C., area bookstore, an older, working-class woman approached me because she had some difficulty grasping my concept of collusion of interest hiding behind illusion of choice. I asked her if she shopped for breakfast cereal. Of course, she did. I pointed out that the aisles feature a dazzling array of different names and colored boxes. However, when you check out the ingredients, they all come down to wheat, corn or rice flakes with variations of sugar and dried fruit. Worse, they are almost all manufactured by three major corporations — General Mills, Kellogg's, and Post. Finally, they are not price competitive and cost too much. That's pretty much what you get on TV these days, I suggested, variations on the same formats and faces. We are asking for something nutritious, delicious and reasonably priced. She got it.

A related misperception that always has to be addressed is that the new communications technologies have generated such a plethora of choice, including cable and the Internet, that public broadcasting has become redundant. It is not that everyone really believes this, but some want me to remind them why this is not so. Here I recall that the prestigious Carnegie Commission, which drafted the proposal for public broadcasting, called for it to serve as "a forum for controversy and debate" where one "could hear the voice of groups not normally heard" so we "could see America whole, in all its diversity." In the federal statute adopting the Carnegie Commission's recommendations, Congress called for an "alternative" that would express "diversity and excellence," involve "creative risks," and address "the needs of the unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities."

Unfortunately, I point out, unlike in every other modern democracy, public broadcasting in the United States has lacked sufficient independent funding to enable it to be editorially free of the imperatives of power and profit. As a consequence, it has become politically timid and increasingly commercial. When the question arises as to where the $1 billion would come from to fund a Public Broadcasting Trust (PBT), I point to the media moguls who squat rent free on the public airwaves. People are typically surprised to learn that broadcasters pay nothing for the licenses they use to sell advertising — sales as high as $50 billion last year. At this point, people typically embrace the proposal that it would be right for broadcasters to pay for this privilege by contributing to a fund for public broadcasting.

I have encountered only two objections to this. In Boston, a man who had apparently wandered into the wrong meeting (and, perhaps, wrong century) took me to task for advocating any taxes because, he asserted, they were not permitted by the Constitution. I eventually concluded this exchange with the statement that as members of society we often pay taxes for public goods and services because they are good for society, even though they might not be specifically of advantage to us as individual contractors. I proposed that schools, libraries, museums and public broadcasting are good for society and was rewarded with a totally unexpected round of applause by those assembled.

The second objection has come from progressive critics and public broadcasting officials alike. Progressive critics, like my friend Bob McChesney, correctly observe that the current $1-2 trillion U.S. budget surplus readily affords us the means of endowing the PBT. Moreover, in his view, if commercial broadcasters ever agree to fund public broadcasting it will only be in exchange for being relieved of any social responsibilities that would apply to them. He sees this as a bad bargain.

At the same time, David Brugger, Executive Director of the Association of America's Public Television Stations, has advised me to drop the focus on commercial-broadcaster funding because he is persuaded that the National Association of Broadcasters would never permit Congress to enact such under any circumstances. Certainly, with its $35 million annual budget and close connections with Republican leaders, the NAB is a formidable opposition force. Our view is that no reform will be possible without a significant grassroots movement — and the idea of commercial broadcasters subsidizing public broadcasting is a popular one with the public. In fact, a national poll by Lake, Snell & Perry found 79 percent support for such a proposal.

Everyone I have talked with is very aware of the increase in the number and length of commercials on public radio and TV. They see through the euphemism of "enhanced underwriting" and they find it annoying. But they are generally not aware that PBS bans program underwriting from public interest and labor groups. A recent (1997), particularly egregious example is the last minute cancellation by PBS of "Out at Work," an award-winning documentary about three gay workers' struggles for justice and dignity at the workplace. PBS cited the less than $16,000 (of $65,000 total) of the film's budget that came from gay groups and labor unions as basis for the cancellation. PBS official Sandra Heberer defended the cancellation with the statement, "PBS guidelines prohibit funding that might lead to control over programming content even, if, as is clear in this case, those underwriters did not."

At the same time, PBS places no limits on corporate and conservative foundation underwriting. My book cites a baker's dozen examples, like a program about gems, funded by DeBeers and Tiffany's and including plugs for both companies, the "Antiques Road Show," sponsored by Chubb Insurance, a company that insures antiques, or a program called "The Health Century," funded by several drug companies, that celebrated medicines that have cured infectious disease and prolonged life with no reference to the skyrocketing cost of health insurance and prescription medicine, among other controversies. When they hear this, everyone in my audiences rejects the suggestion that corporations are not interested parties and readily perceives the danger of public broadcasters taking all their money from only one side in the clash of ideas.

The most difficult organizing challenge we face at CIPB is to make people aware of how much better public broadcasting has been, could and should be. It is relatively easy to organize people to resist losing something they value. It is much harder to motivate them to fight for something they have forgotten or never had in the first place. Here I have to list for them the dozens of award-winning documentaries and program series the PBS and NPR national program services have refused to offer to viewers like them. I raise the stakes by pointing out that public broadcasting is the only place where such ideas, information, or perspectives will ever be available to a national audience.

In many ways, our message goes against the dominant ideas of this age. Years of conservative propaganda have promoted a pervasive cynicism toward political participation and the possibility of good government. In addition, years of anticommunist, free-market propaganda have eclipsed a more traditional cultural appreciation for community property and public service.

During our Save Pittsburgh Public Television campaign, both major Pittsburgh dailies supported the privatization and commercialization of WQEX-TV. The Post-Gazette dismissed our concept of public ownership of the airwaves as "a quaint 1960s view of public television," despite the fact that it remains the law of the land. In this and other editorial attacks, we were depicted as aging hippies whose ideas of popular democracy were out of fashion. Rhetorically reducing political differences to mere fashion is a superficial tactic to avoid debating the relative merits of the ideas. In the end, it didn't work.

Another bias we typically confront is the enduring big lie that public broadcasting is already too liberal. This idea has been promoted for more than 30 years by conservative politicians, taking their words from media watch groups who, in turn, are generously supported by conservative foundations and corporations. Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once answered charges of being "too liberal" — too much in favor of the individual in conflicts with authorities — by stating that, in his view, the very purpose of the Supreme Court is to balance the claims of powerful institutions on behalf of the rights of common people. In this same sense, one could say that public broadcasting has an obligation to be liberal.

Unfortunately, the reality is quite the opposite: studies by FAIR and others document clearly that the topics addressed and guests invited on PBS and NPR public-affairs programs, like those of commercial broadcasters, are heavily biased in favor of whites, males, government and corporate officials and professional journalists — the powerful, the rich, the status-quo.

The chronic accusation of being "too liberal" persists because it makes publishers and broadcasters very sensitive to conservative pressure, especially public broadcasters dependent on federal appropriations. Moreover, this "liberal" image gives the corporate media system credibility with the public no matter how timid their actual work. To their discredit, the typical response of PBS and NPR officials to the erroneous charge of liberal bias is to deny that such exists (perhaps buttressed by a few internal polls) and then to underwrite and air a few more conservatively biased programs to placate critics.

When conservative critics point to the one or two documentaries (which account in total for less than 10 percent of the schedule) that take what could be characterized as a "liberal" position, PBS and NPR officials should point to their founding mission — the one that justifies their reserved spectrum and taxpayer support — to serve as a watchdog on the abuses of the rich and powerful, provide a showcase for the views of the marginal, and promote democratic debate. While public broadcasting has a journalistic obligation to make certain their programs are fair and accurate, they have no obligation to defend the power structure. An open debate of this kind would be very healthy.

Public broadcasting officials might be surprised to see how much support they really have for doing what they were created to do once the debate goes beyond the halls of Congress and the cards and letters generated by the religious right. Our campaign will have achieved progress when public broadcasters are as inclined to apologize for compromising this important mission as for fulfilling it.

In the final analysis, I appeal to my audiences to become the public of public broadcasting, to help create the public space vital to serving democratic debate. I propose that all political opinions and commitments would be better served by having a more inclusive forum for such public discussion. I appeal to people as citizens and residents to take pride in themselves and their communities by demanding that higher concerns and alternative perspectives be reflected in their taxpayer and viewer-/listener-supported public stations. I appeal to people to take ownership of their public trusts before all such possibility is gone. I do this with passion — and I usually get some back.

I hope to see you in your town.