“Oh boy,” you’re muttering, “here comes another right-wing free-market diatribe.” Nice try, but no. I’ll be sad to see funding for public broadcasting cut, and I disagree with Gov. Bob McDonnell’s plan to cut funding for our public broadcasting stations. Ditto for our minority-leader-to-be, Congressman Eric Cantor. Yes, we have a budget crisis, and, yes, $4 million would make a tiny dent in the shortfall. But it’s bad policy, as I will explain.
Now I’ll admit that there are certain reporters and commentators on NPR who make me want to jump through my radio and straighten them out in person. I was outraged when Juan Williams got the ax. Ever since reading Clarence Thomas’s biography, I have been a big Juan Williams fan, although I disagree with him far more often than not.
But I stand firmly in support of steady funding for public broadcasting at the national and local levels. NPR and our local public stations serve a vital purpose and thus are a public good that ought to be subsidized with public dollars, the same way we pay for public libraries and parks.
Public radio provides an educational resource to continue a process that too often stops at graduation from college or high school, or even earlier. And it’s pretty accurate reporting and thoughtful quality entertainment and education. Sure, Garrsion Keillor makes no secret of his politics, but at least he’s not above self parody – can we say the same for our celebrity talking heads on the right? Music and cultural information that cannot be found anywhere else these days enriches and enlightens our lives. Where else can you hear classical music, jazz, swing and avant-garde sounds with knowledgeable commentary that makes them accessible and meaningful? Streaming music on the web is great, but after a while, it turns into elevator music unless you challenge your ears. I find the historical background and interpretation offered by the hosts makes the music infinitely more interesting and satisfying.
Okay, you say, there is a lot of good stuff on public radio and TV — but if it’s so good, why won’t it fund itself? Let the listeners and viewers pay! Of course, they do to a great extent. But the reason that’s not enough is simple: market failure. The concept is sometimes referred to as the “public good/free rider problem” or the “tragedy of the commons.” Public sanitation, water, roads, police and military defense are all examples that even the most ardent free-market proponents recognize as proper subjects for collective support, because the value to society as a whole is significantly greater than the amount that a limited number of private consumers might pay. Just last week I heard an excellent NPR segment on this very subject, and it was really quite balanced (coincidence?). Free-market types might draw the line a little more stringently than their liberal counterparts, but almost all agree on the principle. Public broadcasting is perhaps not as obvious as the easy examples, but our governments often fund public art, architecture, education and other public goods — so why not music with enduring value (as opposed to the ephemeral Top 40) and serious debate and journalism (as opposed to the mosh pits that pass for news shows on private networks)?
And really, where is the liberal bias in “Virginia Currents,” “Nova” or “Live From Lincoln Center?” There is none, unless you think that fine arts, serious music and literature are inherently liberal. That’s just reverse snobbery in my estimation. We can hear all the left-wing (and right-wing) points of view we want by flipping back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, but to my ear, the nonstop interrupting and shouting over the guests makes me reach for the remote after a few minutes of either.
By contrast, you can hear respectful and reasoned discussion between the likes of David Brooks (my favorite neo-con, if only because he went to my high school) and E.J. Dionne, each offering his clearly expressed but diametrically opposed views with civility and respect. You’ll get more real insight from five minutes of “All Things Considered” than an hour of Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olberman. On the web or cable, satellite and commercial radio, you can listen to what you want to hear all day long – but it won’t make you think the way you do when you hear an opposing point of view presented in a reasoned and respectful tone. If you want to win an argument, you need to really understand your opposition, and that takes listening, not just nodding your head or muttering “ditto” while you drive to work to the dulcet tones of your favorite talk radio pundit.
A democratic republic based on universal suffrage cannot survive if the electorate stops learning when they leave school, whatever level they complete. We spend billions on education, and then we turn our graduates loose to make their way in the world. They strive to make a living, raise a family, defend our homes from fire and violence, fight for our country in foreign wars, vote, maybe run for office, start a small business or run a big company. Too often, the day-to-day routine of any of these occupations eventually gouges deeply rutted patterns of thought – and learning stops. When we are not alert to new or challenging ideas, when there is nothing to hear but the echo chamber playing back our own preconceptions, prejudices and pet peeves, our public spirit suffers. So let’s be responsible, and not cripple these invaluable organizations for the sake of short-term political advantage or budget reductions that pale in comparison with other opportunities for savings.
After all, the shoe might someday be on the other foot. And surely there must still be a couple of “bridges to nowhere” or other earmarked boondoggles that we can do without. Let’s make sure we cut those before we toss our valuable treasures in the dumpster.
Tom Bowden is an attorney at Sands Anderson. The views expressed here are his alone and do not represent his firm.
Shame! Shame! Tom, how could you? I’m distressed that you’ve abandoned your free-market principles on this one.
Market failure? Sez who? Has NPR tried living without government subsidies? How do you know that the people who love it, like you and thousands of others, wouldn’t step up their contributions if government withdrew its support? How do you know that NPR’s executives wouldn’t get a little more creative in ways to find new revenue sources? The fact is, there has been no market failure because NPR has never been asked to go solo.
I enjoy NPR. It may be liberal leaning, but it’s not offensively so. It’s worth listening to simply because the quality of journalism and commentary is consistently superior. Why, if government pulled the plug on NPR, ol’ conservative me might step up to the plate and donate a few bucks — something I’ve never felt bestirred to do before.
Why not give the free market a chance?
Jim, I’ll use your own words in rebuttal. “It’s worth listening to simply because the quality of journalism and commentary is consistently superior. ” You’re right, superior to that offered by commercial radio, which already competes in the free market. Public broadcasting, radio and television, offers a superior product simply because it does NOT have to chase after the greatest number of eyes and ears or maximize its profit to investors. That freedom from commercial pressures allows for time and energy to be spent on more journalistic quality and integrity, and not on increasing market share. Kick public broadcasting out into the wilderness of the free market and it becomes just another outlet for Clear Channel. By the way, the bulk of public broadcasting income already comes from private donors, not from government. Feel free to contribute now, BEFORE Governor Bob pulls the plug.
Tom, I agree completely that NPR is one of the few places on the airwaves where one can actually learn something. I stopped listening to commercial radio sometime in the ’80s because I couldn’t stand the screaming, the commercials, or the screaming commercials. Ditto commercial TV – the invention of the DVR saved my sanity.
Public broadcasting – particularly on the television side – provides a lot of direct-to-classroom education. Public dollar support should definitely continue. That said, I know that in the last 30 years PBS/NPR has seen its corporate support money far outstrip the funding it gets from public coffers, at least at the state level. If the state wants to back out, perhaps they should look at the cost of replacing the distance-learning programs that public broadcasting provides. I know, since I spent more than two decades in TV news production, that they’d likely have to spend another 50% – $6M – to replace it.
Think again, Gov. Bob…
Mr. Bacon, The free market shows us daily what it is capable of. Are you satisfied with the paltry 22 minutes the major networks devote to the news every weeknight? That is, during those minutes when they actually cover the news and not royal weddings or the latest tabloid adventure?
Are you satisfied with opinion TV on Fox and MSNBC? With opinion AM radio?
Do you think the major papers are able to maintain their quality while they hemmorhage reporters in an effort to stay afloat?
The market has spoken, and it is saying loud and clear it cannot make much (if any) money selling hard news. The quality of todays programming is simply inferior to public broadcasting.
I appreciate the free market as much as the next guy, but sometimes the free market simply isn’t the right tool for the job. Until it demonstrates that it can up its game to the same level as public broadcasting, your argument ultimately falls short. Mr. Bowden, I appreciate your column today in large part because it was not written by a typical liberal supporter of NPR. It has a Nixon goes to China feel to it. I hope other like-minded people come to the same conclusions.
Thanks for writing this, Tom. Public television and radio perform a function that commercial broadcasters simply don’t. I hope they will continue to receive public funding. I also hope that folks who listen but don’t contribute come to see that individual support is not a ‘donation.’ It’s payment for value received. Kind of like the free market.
Excellent article, Tom. I can see where intelligent reporting and programming would scare the bejezzus out of some folks. Cantor and his consorts want to take punitive action against
NPR, not for its management decision in the termination of Juan Williams, but to snap the back of enlightened conversation that oftens challenges the right wing.
Good article, but lets get government money out of this. It sounds like NPR has plenty of listeners, so they should have no problem selling advertising and making a profit. Government has no place in media, except mayby in Venezuela, China, Iran, etc., etc.
Why is Thomas Bowden pretending to be a conservative?
Bowden says “All Things Considered” has “real insight”? REALLY? Real insight like this:
“The Rapture, and I quote, ‘is the immediate departure from this Earth of over four million people in less than a fifth of a second,’ unquote. This happily-volatilized mass of the saved were born again in Jesus Christ….The evaporation of four million people who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place.” — NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu on All Things Considered.
Bowden says David Brooks is his “favorite neocon”? LOL!! Brooks is IN LOVE with Obama:
In an August, 2009 profile of Brooks, The New Republic describes his first encounter with Obama, in the spring of 2005: ” I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president. Two days after Obama’s second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, hit bookstores, Brooks published a column in The New York Times, entitled “Run, Barack, Run”, urging Obama to run for president. So Bowden likes neocons as long as they support socialists like Obama.
How about NPR star Nina Totenberg:
“I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — NPR reporter Nina Totenberg reacting to Senator Jesse Helms’ claim that the government spends too much on AIDS research on Inside Washington
LOL LOL LOL at Bowden trying to act like a conservative! He supports public funding of a network that has, as shown above, wished AIDS upon conservatives and genocide upon Christians!
Mr. Ficor, I appreciate what you are saying, but I might have some news for you. Public radio has a huge audience.They do go after audience. In Richmond, it’s often the highest rated radio station during drivetime. If what you said was true, I could support public funds for a struggling caring effort only a few thoughtful, caring people care about. But, sorry, nah. They’re successful and they’ve driven anyone who want to compete with them out using, in part, public funds.
So, I agree with Jim Bacon, (On this.)
Having worked hard in local journalism, making an honest effort here to do the kind of journalism that NPR does, but trying to get paid for it in the marketplace, I suspect Jim Bacon once or twice noticed some of his news competitors were feeding at the public trough. So, Bacon annoyed, eye-rolling tone might be forgiven (except that he’s adopted that as his standard).
Jim Bacon’s point applies to all of public radio, but here in Richmond it is especially true, where our local public radio station’s idea of journalism is mostly reading the newspaper or talking to some do-gooder whining into the microphone about how she is “helping the children.” (That is not compelling radio, I’m sorry.) Some say this is getting to look more and more stupid with the Internet, but especially so with iPad-type devices dropping in price. I think it’s just bad radio.
Travel to Roanoke and listen to their public radio station for a couple of hours during drivetime. Compare. Wow, interesting, useful stuff there. In Roanoke! The people in front of the mikes have personality. Then, go to Atlanta and listen to their public radio. Yeah, I know, big market, but–wow–so professional. One doesn’t get the feeling we have here in Richmond that the station is run for grins by family and friends.
Mr. Bowden points are well taken about NPR. Much of what he says reflects what I hear on the air. Like him, I enjoy listening to it most weekday mornings. But, here’s the thing: I’m convinced the private marketplace could do it better, but few are willing to compete with their own tax dollars in radio. That’s especially true in Richmond.
NPR once got funds from the federal government, now they do not. I believe that today they more or less sell their services to their member stations, which gets donated funds from “listeners like you,” and the sponsorships and grants and such. NPR pretty much has to earn it from their users, one way or another. They have gotten some very nice gifts, which are always welcome. People like it, so they support it. With their own money. That’s great.
I’m suggesting local stations now do the same as NPR. Our taxes are needed elsewhere.
Nice try. David Brooks is an unabashed Obama supporter yet you cite him as evidence of NPR being fair and balanced?
EPIC FAIL !!!
Bowden is in fact “a typical liberal supporter of NPR”.
Have you noticed how liberals are always ready to claim that MSNBC is the same as Fox News? It’s because they know no one watches MSNBC and that everyone watches Fox News. So of course they’re willing to throw MSNBC under the bus.
Liberals are losing in the marketplace of ideas, and that’s why less people watch NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS. Liberals like Bowden are desperately trying to keep NPR alive because they know they are losing.
Problem is, liberal ideas don’t stand up to lengthy discussions – that’s why every attempt at a liberal talk radio network has FAILED, just like this article.
Bowden says “you can hear respectful and reasoned discussion” on NPR.
Oh really? Like Nina Totenburg wishing that Republicans would get AIDS? Or NPR commentators on All Things Considered wishing genocide on Christians who believe in the rapture?
NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu on All Things Considered:
“The Rapture, and I quote, ‘is the immediate departure from this Earth of over four million people in less than a fifth of a second,’ unquote. This happily-volatilized mass of the saved were born again in Jesus Christ….The evaporation of four million people who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place.”
Nina Totenberg:
“I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Totenberg on Jesse Helms.
I think that given government usurpation of over 1/4 of the economy coupled with the decline of the productive economy, that it’s time to drop the “nice to haves” and focus on the got to haves.
I submit that in the 21st century, PBS and NPR as taxpayer supported entities are no longer critical to the distribution of education and culture. Nice to have, sure, got to have, no.
I am sure both could exist without money taken from the taxpayers. Let’s give them a chance to see.
They will not be alone.
Originally NPR/PBS was established to provide the public with unbiased free radio and TV apart from the for-profit media. There were only 3 primary networks available at the time. Although a questionable need at the time, tax funded media got it’s start. Today it is no longer needed as a tax funded entity. There is no justification for NPR/PBA to be on the dole of the federal government. It, like Nat. Endow. Arts and others, should be immediately defunded. If there is a need for this type of entertainment, private sponsors will emerge.
I suggest that the liberal entertainers, commentators, Bill Gates Foundation, etc. step-up-to-the-plate to fund NPR/PBS and various other federal social programs. There is no point or value in the taxpayer doing so. There is no free lunch except in K-6.