PBS Will Fight For Federal Funding
By DAVID BAUDER, AP
NEW YORK (AP) - Under fire on Capitol Hill for sharing its donor lists with the
Democrats, PBS is determined to fight for its federal funding, even if it represents only
14 percent of its budget.
The Public Broadcasting Service argues that the subsidy is more important than
the small percentage might suggest, since it triggers other donations and its elimination
would represent a major philosophical shift.
It's not worth going it alone, even if avoids nasty political scrapes, said
Ervin Duggan, PBS president and chief executive. ``If you talk about privatizing
public broadcasting, you're really using a euphemism for commercializing public
broadcasting,'' he said, ``and the entire mission of the institution changes.'' Last week
it was disclosed that at least two dozen public television stations exchanged membership
lists with political groups. Some Republican lawmakers responded by renewing calls to
strip public broadcasting of its $250 million government subsidy. PBS's portion of
that money accounts for 14 percent of its operating revenue. When the system began 30
years ago, Congress kicked in more than half of the funds, one expert said. It was down to
one-fifth by 1980 and the percentage has dropped steadily since then.
Through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, member television and radio
stations also get a portion of the federal pie. The money represents anywhere from 10
percent to nearly 40 percent of the TV stations' budgets, with the money more important
for smaller stations that serve rural areas.
PBS's share of $37 million is ``absolutely essential seed money,'' spokesman
Thomas Epstein said. The federal funds trigger matching state grants for educational
programming and encourage private investment, he said.
Some PBS programming, such as the investigative series ``Frontline'' and
American drama, wouldn't attract enough private funding to stay on the air, the executives
said.
PBS attracted $186 million in corporate underwriting in 1998, up $44 million
from the previous year. Its largest source of funding remains donations by viewers.
Public broadcasting's aggressiveness in seeking other funding sources has led
some critics to suggest the system's mission has already changed. Certainly it has led to
touchy moments: ``Sesame Street'' was criticized by Ralph Nader for broadcasting a
15-second message from an indoor playground manufacturer that had kicked in $1 million
toward producing the show.
``The greater the commercial pressure, the greater the need to tailor
programming to corporate underwriting,'' said James Ledbetter, author of ``Made Possible
By...,'' a book about public broadcasting. ``There are a lot of people who would argue
that they are there already.''
It's been more than a decade since PBS produced a program geared to blacks,
arguably the type of community underserved by commercial broadcasters that the public
system was invented for, Ledbetter said.
At the same time, PBS produces a nightly business roundup, even though several
cable channels do the same thing, because that's attractive to corporate sponsors, he
said.
``Public TV is best looked upon as a kind of niche market within commercial
broadcasting, rather than an alternative to it,'' Ledbetter said.
Duggan said he is ``aware of no evidence that we have pulled our punches or
succumbed to the needs'' of sponsors. Public broadcasting's diversity of funding sources
ensures its independence, he said.
Public broadcasters are also protective of public funding because of the looming
expenses related to the transformation to a digital marketplace. It will require the
formation of new channels and major equipment purchases, costing an estimated $1.7
billion, Epstein said.
PBS and Ledbetter agree that public broadcasting would be better served by a
funding mechanism that insulates it from recurring political battles, either a trust fund
or a dedicated revenue stream.
``In a lot of ways, there is now more than ever a need for a truly public
broadcasting system,'' Ledbetter said. ``I think the issue of providing a true lens on
American society is always a vital idea and something that cable networks and commercial
broadcasting does very incompletely.''
