Who shoud pay for Public Radio?

You may have heard on NCPR about something called 170 Million Americans for Public Broadcasting. It is a network/station collaboration that came about shortly after the last election, when it became clear that the new Congress would make a concerted effort to de-fund public broadcasting. You can see details of three bills already in the pipeline that would do some or all of that on the home page at NCPR, and you can get more information than anyone could possibly need at the 170 Million… website.

But I’d like to talk about why federal funding is important to this station–North Country Public Radio. The term “public broadcasting” covers a whole ecology of organizations: PBS stations, NPR affiliates, community broadcasters, native and Hispanic stations, independent producers and more. And of course the online media properties associated with them, like ncpr.org. Many receive public tax money via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and many do not. NCPR does: 16% of our budget in the last fiscal year came in the form of federal support. You can see NCPR’s latest financial disclosures here.

This is a steadily shrinking piece of our funding, and an argument could be made–is being made–that we could survive without it. And NCPR could, with difficulty–though many other public broadcasters could not. But as long as NCPR is a publicly-funded entity, we have a mandate to serve the public interest. Organizations that are solely member-funded have a different mandate–to serve their member’s interest. There is a world of difference between the two, or so we reckon. It’s the difference between the public square and the common room of a private club.

At NCPR we choose to function within the public square. And we will try to serve the public interest regardless of how we are funded. In part because we believe that our private funders give to us in an effort to serve a broader interest than their own. And in part because it’s a job that just plain needs doing–in these times when the needs of civil society are taking a back seat to the interests of the personal, the partisan and the parochial.

Should the public continue to support NCPR and other public broadcasters with federal tax dollars? Let me know what you think in a comment below.

Tags: ,

5 Comments on “Who shoud pay for Public Radio?”

  1. john says:

    This comment is pretty reflexive, but I have paid taxes to our government for 45 years. In that time, I have paid for wars that I hated, defense contracting that I didn’t agree with, tax subsidies that helped big corporations move offshore and destroy the middle class in this country, roads to nowhere, bridges to nowhere, and on and on. Now I am told that something that represents one of the highest achievements of our civilization needs to be scrapped because it offends someones ideological purity about capitalism and conservatism. CPB has been one of the most effective vehicles for artistic support and cultural education that that reaches 170,00,000 people. Think about that; 170,000,000 people! CPB has served the greater good of our society for decades and for a pittance. CPB is a great deal and a force for much good in our world.

  2. Pete Klein says:

    This is a no brainer. I totally agree with the above post.
    Maybe the brainiacs who don’t want to support Public Radio and TV would like to suggest that when we file our income tax returns, we can decide what government agencies and programs we would like to support. Maybe I would put all my tax dollars into funding the arts and let the Pentagon go beg for dollars.
    Of course this would be really stupid but I’m just reacting to the stupidity of some elected idiots.
    Do we have a community of citizens or have we devolved into just a bunch of self interest clowns?

  3. Ellen Rocco says:

    Wow, you guys. NO JOKE: reading your comments means a great deal to all of us. Thanks.

  4. Bill G says:

    I echo the sentiments of John and Pete. However, I do believe that the handling of the Juan Williams situation fed the idealogues on the right red meat. If the movement to defund public TV and radio goes any place, I would lay blame at the feet of Ms Shiller. It is difficult for me to understand how someone in the communications business could do such a bad job of communicating. That said, I think it would be extremely unfortunate for those not associated with the affair (including the public) to pay the price.

  5. Alan Gregory says:

    Yes, because it enfranchises the public, giving real people, not corporations, a seat at the table, so to speak.

Comments are closed.