Public Broadcasters Prepare to Fight Federal Budget Cuts
It’s a familiar dance: for eight straight years, the Bush administration has proposed deep cuts in federal funds for public broadcasting, and seven times so far, Congress has restored them. But the magnitude of the proposed cuts put forth this week - Patricia Harrison, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, called them “draconian” - still sent public broadcasters scrambling.
Matt Martin, general manager of KALW-FM in San Francisco, went on the air Monday night to tell listeners about the effects of the proposed budget, which would cut in half the $400 million allocated in advance by Congress for fiscal year 2009 and cut $220 million from the $420 million already planned for 2010.
In addition, President Bush proposed eliminating advance funds for 2011, along with any additional funds in 2009 for stations to convert to digital transmission, which is federally mandated. They are the deepest cuts yet proposed by the administration.
KALW relies on federal funds for just under 10 percent of its $1.6 million annual budget, but that is money “that can make or break a lot of things we do,” Mr. Martin said. He added that he was particularly concerned about relying on contributions to make up any potential shortfall, given the state of the economy.
Critics of public funds for public broadcasting have long held that educational and other public-interest programming is increasingly available elsewhere, including on cable.
“The administration’s proposal is consistent with the evolving role of public broadcasting in a market that has benefited from tremendous growth and diversity of programming,” Sean Kevelighan, press secretary at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said in an e-mail message. He also said that government funds make up only 15 percent of public broadcasting revenue.
The administration’s budget also called for cuts at the National Endowment for the Arts, but not nearly of the magnitude of those faced by public broadcasting. There the administration proposed a cut of $16.3 million - to $128.4 million from $144.7 million.
Robert L. Lynch, president and chief executive of Americans for the Arts, an advocacy group, called the cuts “senseless” and asked Congress to restore the National Endowment for the Arts to its 1992 financing level of $176 million.
“After three years of minimal, but incremental, funding growth, we are sorry to see an attempt at this progress erased,” Mr. Lynch said in a statement.
The administration also refused, for the eighth consecutive year, to finance arts education programs.
By contrast, the White House requested $716.4 million for the Smithsonian Institution for fiscal year 2009, up from $682.6 million for fiscal 2008.
This was a positive turn for the Smithsonian, which has been struggling over the last year to improve its administration and oversight amid recent scandals.
The appropriation provided for an additional $15 million in a “legacy fund” requested by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would become available once the Smithsonian raised $30 million. The fund would be used for renovations and repairs at the institution’s various museums.
The proposed cuts for public broadcasting come just as local public television station executives are set to descend on Washington next week for a day of lobbying. They will be asking not just for the cut funds to be reinstated but also for an increase, which they eventually got last year, said John Lawson, president and chief executive of the Association of Public Television Stations.
“I’m confident we will be successful,” he said in an interview, noting that this year for the first time, stations will be tying their pleas to “the delivery of quantifiable services to local communities,” in the form of early childhood education, health information and a “recommitment to local programming, which is increasingly missing from the media marketplace.”
But others are not so sure. Ken Stern, chief executive of National Public Radio, said in an interview that even though public broadcasters had been successful in fighting off past proposed cuts, this year could be different. “I worry that this gets lost in a whole lot of other issues,” he said, acknowledging that it was also “an incredibly tight budget year.”
He added that “one of the shames” is that by focusing on restoring the budget, instead of adding new funds, attention is drawn away from how public broadcasting could do even more to serve its constituencies at a time of media upheaval.
“That’s the conversation we should be having, and not just fighting off these paint-by-numbers cuts that the administration is proposing,” he said.
Mr. Martin, at KALW in San Francisco, said he was careful not to advocate what action listeners should take when he told them about the cuts. But public broadcasters are hopeful that Congress will see the same groundswell of support for their services as they did during past budget fights. The last time around, some two million citizens contacted Congress, Mr. Stern said.
In a statement, Ms. Harrison of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which administers the federal money, noted that the proposed cuts “would work to degrade a 40-year partnership the American people overwhelmingly support and their elected representatives in Congress have repeatedly voted to strengthen.”
Robin Pogrebin contributed reporting.
© 2008 The New York Times
PBS has made its own bed on this one. Their consistent pandering to corporations for funding and running “advertisements” masquerading as public service announcements, and their following the conservative line, with the single exception of Bill Moyers, has now come home to roost. Where are they going to get the courage to speak truth to power? Their silence on the FCC’s capture of the public airways is now costing them and they are scrambling for a solution. It may be too late, unless they can grow spines and clean house of the inbred White House clones living in their midst.
peace,
st john
$200 million. Isn’t that about the cost of one afternoon in Iraq?
Hopefully they won’t scramble for corporate money to continue expanding. In doing so, they’ll fall into the hands of those who want to privatize them.
I see the same thing happening at public universities and libraries. The LAST thing any public institution should do is render the cutback in public funding transparent to its constituents/users, by means of an even swap out of public to private back-end funding.
Better to cut costs, even axe services left and right, and let the public see the folly of their ways in the voting booth — and demand more out of their politicians. Expose its fragility, even as a sacrificial pawn if necessary.
Paul is quite right, just above. But don’t look for it to happen that way, because the not-for-profit leaders would be inviting their own job terminations when they accept program cuts instead of running out as valiant soldiers to raise private money.
The simple fix for PBS is hiding in plain sight, just elect Barack or Hillary and watch different and better budgets from The White House.
I peek at the “newshour” on pbs from time to time. I’m curious to see how they compare with the big networks. From what I can see it’s a waste of money. There are style differences but the content is comparable on most stories.
Let me give you an example. In high quality non-American news (let’s call it real news) you may have a story about an allegation that the government is lying about something (let’s say torture). There will be an intro piece to set it up. Next, they will talk to the people making the charges (say, Human Rights Watch). Finally the accused government spokesman will have a chance to rebut the charges. He may or may not avail himself of that opportunity.
On pbs or the other American shows, I have noticed a different pattern. It begins the same with an intro piece but that’s where the similarity ends. After having briefly paraphrased the allegations in the intro, pbs skips right to the government which is then afforded the opportunity to defend itself against charges that the viewers have never heard. Naturally the government representatives are happy to take on the easy task of misrepresenting the allegations and twisting the narrative with no one to oppose them.
I, however, do like that Bill Moyers show.
Gee, maybe they should ask the Pentagon for funds–after all, they gave enough generals air time to propagandize the war, so maybe it’s payback time.
Wow, I’m surprised to see people being down on PBS here. I always thought it was the best (and most objective) in world news. If anything, you could call this punishment from Bush for bill moyers and other bits of info that makes the public better informed.
From an American Indian perspective PBS has with rare exception excluded American Indian issues other than an occasional cultural show. Even though rez and non-rez Indians constitute 4.5% of the population, serious Indian issues are never covered.
Why? Jews largely control PBS and they choose to exclude Indians. Why? Jews use the European Holocaust of six million Jews to garner political support and they will not allow the American Genocide of one hundred million American Indians to interfere with that advantage.
I have personally and consistently tried to enlist the support of a local NPR radio station in placing important local American Indian issues into their programming. The program manager is Jewish. He consistently finds excuses not to air the shows. Indians across America have had the same experience.
So for me, I’m more than willing to let PBS and NPR collapse. It is Jewish public communications and nothing more. Too bad but not unwelcome.
Limbaugh, Fox, and certain Clear Channel stations regularly utter thinly (and not so thinly) veiled racist epithets against pretty much any group except Jews. Odd that racists are so “considerate” to one formerly targetted group. Not coincidental to be sure.
The low single digit CPI numbers the Bush Administration has concocted for the past seven years have understated inflation to the extent that any line item in the budget not getting a 10% or more boost over the previous year is getting a de facto budget cut.
To sustain the war on terror, the war on drugs and the illusion of homeland security, all domestic programs that don’t enrich the 1% at the expense of the 99% must be cut drastically. PBS employees, viewers and listeners contribute very little money to Republican politicians. The military industrial media complex contributes a lot.
So many common names on every article on Common Dreams. Self-proclaimed experts on every topic imaginable.
Of course pbs presents all sides of the issues. They view it as their job and obligation. The funding cuts are of course punishment from the Bush administration. And you support it? If pbs is being used successfully to propogandize, then why is funding being cut? That makes no sense. It’s because it is a threat. Jim Lehrer-i have grown fond of his smirk, and if you look closely you will see it too. What about the length of the pieces? Fifteen or twenty minutes on a story-isn’t it better than twenty seconds, which is what you get on the networks? And certainly shows like POV, Independent Lens, the American Experience and most of all Frontline are there doing what we want them to do. Do you watch those shows?
I watched one of the shows about early Jewish immigrants a couple of weeks ago. As with most if not all of pbs’ historical perspectives it was informative and fascinating. They have done similar stories on most every immigrant group to come to the US.
I am bothered by the corporate support and essentially the commercials that are run. Anything to do with the cutting of funding and survival?
Doom and Gloom: the American Indian experience has not been fully told-I agree. But until The People’s History of the United States is taught in our schools and we get rid of Columbus Day it may never really be told.
I usually don’t chip in the discussion, but can’t resist after reading someone’s comparison of main stream news and News Hour. Same?? CNN looks more like FOX everyday. Jim Lehrer is the man, and his crew is professional, as unbiased as anyone on the air, and a pleasure to watch after sitting through a yelling, constant interupting, joke of any of the other “news” shows. Cuts in funding to PBS is about continuing the dumbing down of us, the sheep in shoppers clothing.
Oh my God. WHY have the progressives all of a sudden become so hostile, paranoid and racist towards jewish people? The Urban legends stating that “Jews control the world and make life suck for all of us” are the exact same urban legends the NAZIS used to spread!
It’s odd to hear that there are those who find the PBS news hour no better than mainstream outlets.
It’s sad to watch the dumbing down of America.
It’s chilling to hear that old “Blame it on the Jews” explanation floated by those who are dissatisfied with media coverage, the price of oil, the upsurge of terrorism.
This is BushCo’s revenge against “Bill Moyers’ Journal” and “Frontline: Cheney’s Law.”
You think I’m joking. I wish I were.
I have noticed a lot of antisemitic rumblings on CD posts. This is no way to voice opposition to Israel’s imitation of US agresion.
It’s not anti-semitic to point out that there are many Jews in media. I think it is interesting, in fact, why such a small ethnic group seems to be heavily vested in media, gets kosher stamping on many US food products, etc. It’s nonsense to suggest that making demonstrable observations is anti-semitic in any way.
I have Jewish friends, others who I count as philosophical and political influences, humor and the arts, computing, etc.
The broad brush of antisemitism applied to criticism of Jews no longer works. It is not stereotyping when legitimate specific examples are used and specific criticisms are voiced.
In fact, it must be done to blunt the attempted right-wing Israeli hijacking of American policy.
I enjoy the PBS show wide-angle. Sometimes they do good reporting.
Most everything else on American TV is crap. I feel its largely indoctrinating people. The movie “Network” where the main character says “You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you think like the tube,” that line is so true for most of America, they imitate TV and don’t think outside the box especially the young. Aside from the fact television is the wrapping for advertising and consumerism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI
I prefer to be a free-thinker and turn off the TV. We all should.
PBS is the only channel I watch. I’m a member of my local affiliate. Despite whatever problems they have, I find them to be a rare beacon in a TV wasteland.
With Frontline and Moyers, I’m surprised they’re still funded at all.
I remember watching on broadcast TV at 11:30 pm “Politically Incorrect” with Bill Mahar which was followed up by “Nightline” with Ted Koppel…
not long after Bush got in, Nightline was targeted for the ax. Of course, soon Politically Incorrect was gone and nightline stayed on.
Frankly, I am sick of the Jewish Centric Public Broadcast Network and Mid East “news” its been the “same shit different day” for decades now- violence.
Remember how the US government stopped the(airplane hijackings etc.)terrorists of the 70’s and 80’s? they said “no more press” and stopped publicizing claims for violent incidents, end of problem. So why is the media giving press(advertising)for terrorists again? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Why can’t they pull all the funds for NPR and leave PBS as is. PBS still has some decent programing, NPR is a waste of airspace.
I agree w/ Paul Bramsher above. When I watch the credits for the producers of not only TV shows but also other segments of the media including print, I see Jewish names over-represented as a %age of US population. Why is this?