I’m sure you’ve heard about the Juan Williams/NPR debacle. You may also know that Senator Jim DeMint has vowed to introduce legislation that will deprive NPR, as well as public television, of taxpayer funds. It seems that in this political climate, asking a candidate where they stand on funding public broadcasting or the arts has become the new litmus test, replacing questions about abortion and gay rights.
In other words, it’s Christmas everyday for Libertarians.
There seem to be three consistent arguments in favor of tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting and government subsidies for “art,” First, the defenders question the amount of money actually on the table. After all, these programs are but a teeny-tiny piece of our ever expanding government. Secondly, dispensing taxpayer cash on media is “in the public interest.” In the unholy pursuit of “profits,” private broadcasters and artists often compromise their work to make money. Private news organizations like FOX and MSNBC sensationalize the news and have become hyper-partisan in order to increase ratings and advertising dollars. We need outlets that are free from the restraints of the free market. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which in this case is a giant yellow bird. “Sesame Street.”
What kind of Islamophobic, racist, evil, baby-blood-drinking fascist wants to send Elmo to the unemployment line?
The first argument is simply ridiculous. We’ve all had to, at one point or another, examine our household budgets and look for spending cuts. We write down a list of our expenses, organizing them in order of both cost and importance. At the top is stuff like rent/mortgages, utilities, car payments etc. Towards the bottom is the fun stuff like vacations, extra cable channels, and faster internet. Everybody always starts at the bottom. Nobody starts at the top. “Hey, let’s ditch the house and keep our annual trip to the Wisconsin Dells?” My girlfriend always likes to try and sneak cigarettes and scotch into the non-essential category. Nice try. I always push for more mac and cheese in order to keep my subsidies of R.J. Reynolds and Pernod Ricard intact. But I digress.
The money we spend on arts and media at the federal level is never too small to ignore. I think most taxpayers would trade a free movie ticket once a year for all the Bill Moyers specials, Nina Totenberg insight, and jars of pee and crucifixes that our federal government can buy. Public broadcasting and the arts are but two of a myriad of programs with similar “insignificant” funding. You start nuking all of them and before you know it, that free ticket to AMC becomes a down payment on a car. It is the height of arrogance to imply that waste and questionable costs at any level are acceptable or insignificant. To make this argument reveals that the person making it has a grotesque understanding of the relationship between government and tax payer.
The second argument is disingenuous, but not for the reasons that you may think. There is a real and tangible value to news and media that is free from a personal or corporate bias. A news organization or television network whose motto was a Jack Webb quote would actually serve the public. Unfortunately, the CPB has failed their mission.
And what about the educational and quality entertainment like “Sesame Street”? Surely, even a miserly old curmudgeon like me can see the value in allowing quality programming to be financed without the tinkering of executives or the pressure of ratings? The answer is, without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately for you, my statist apologist advisories, all of the shows that have come from public broadcasting that are a “value to the public” have also demonstrated financial solvency in the free market. “Sesame Street” is worth more than a Dr. Evil ransom. “Austin City Limits” makes money from the live performance venues (charging admission) and from selling recordings on sites like itunes in addition to generating revenue from ads on websites like youtube.
The point is that it is up to the producers of these shows to protect the integrity of their work. There is great value in alternative financing structures, through sponsorships, donations, and merchandising. That is without question.
“Sesame Street” makes enough money through merchandising to PURCHASE air time from private networks. No need for Elmo and Co. to sell out the quality or educational value of their show. The ancillary incomes from the “Sesame Street” empire would allow the producers to make the show any way they wanted. If they stuck to their principles, it wouldn’t matter if they were on PBS or ABC Family. However, the recent Katy Perry “incident” suggests to me that even with public financing the current people behind the show may be slipping a bit. I’ve included the Katy Perry video below, purely for informational purposes. I’ve watched it 72 times to accurately shape my opinion.
—–
The free market value of shows that used to be PBS type stuff is rather apparent. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic channel exclusively air programming that was once solid PBS territory. As a kid growing up, I used to watch “Dr. Who” on PBS. You know, the same show that you now watch on BBC America, Syfy, or on demand on Netflix. And it’s TLC, not PBS, that has greenlit a series that showcases the wonders of Alaska as seen through the eyes of a popular American figure.
This whole debate and kurfuffle exposes a much larger truth. The bone of contention isn’t so much whether or not this type of funding, in it’s stated form, has value to our society. The problem is the human factor. On paper, we can say that these public institutions are above the fray of the free market and bias, but they aren’t. The mission of an NPR is a noble one. It is the execution that is flawed. The CPB gives us government versions of MSNBC and Air America that don’t have to worry about crappy ratings. Our tax dollars immunize partisans and people of questionable on-air talent from the grim realties of cancellation.
But isn’t that the way it always is? We are constantly lectured about the value of “public” institutions and programs vs. the evil private industries that provide the same services. But, at their root, when you introduce the human element, these “public” entities function in exactly the same way as their private counterparts, minus the checks and balances of the free market. Where are, as Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue, these “angels” who will manage these public programs for us?
—–
Where are they indeed, Milton.
Shouldn’t ideologues be willing to take the hit personally? Shouldn’t any organization that relies, in any part, on forcibly confiscated citizen funds be held to incredibly high standards? If someone is going to ask for all of us to pitch in, shouldn’t they lead the way, donating their blood, sweat and tears to what they believe in? It is rather egregious that NPR personalities and executives have competitive, and in some cases superior, compensation to their private industry counterparts. If you don’t like the money, can’t afford to do it, then, in the words of Chris Christie, don’t do it. On top of that, the people who work in these public sectors must themselves be above the fray, putting their own bias and ideology on the back burner to serve the greater good.
For Public Broadcasting or arts financing to have any hope of working and actually living up to their oft defended and declared mission statements, radical changes are needed. Nobody should plan on becoming rich and famous from a career in public broadcasting. Volunteer, balanced advisory boards must be created to ensure that public funds do actually serve the public, and not a small minority of small minded leftists. I’m sure Leigh Scott, John Nolte, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart would volunteer some time to review PBS programming schedules and NEA submissions.
But nobody’s asking us. The notion of a “public interest” is undermined by the very people who champion it. It shouldn’t be up to me, a capitalist slime ball who makes movies featuring mutants and flying monsters to be obsessed with the integrity and bias of the CPB, NEH, or NEA. It should be the obsession of the people who have dedicated their lives to these organizations and their mission statements.
But it isn’t. So, these public programs have become the extra cable channels and Disneyland trips of the federal budget. Time to tighten our belts. Sorry, but they gotta go.