Should Government Fund Public Broadcasting?
On May 27th, NPR, Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and KSUT Public Radio filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order that would cancel all federal support for public media.
The lawsuit argues that the order violates the First Amendment and the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which prevents federal agencies from controlling the CPB. The CPB distributes federal funds to local public radio and television stations.
We set aside whether a president or only Congress can cancel federal funding for CPB and instead address whether such funding is good policy. Our answer is no.
The main reason is that such funding is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Any government policy or program has a viewpoint, but funding television and radio broadcasting is especially problematic, since government financing inevitably subsidizes some perspectives over others. Even a formally ‘neutral’ grant process cannot escape this effect: public money sustains the editorial judgments of the recipients and leaves rival voices to fend for themselves.
A second issue is that public funding is not a convincing response to any externality or public goods problem. This is separate from whether PBS programming is “good.” Let’s stipulate that it is. But so is any product that survives in the market. The question for government funding is whether the market will fail to provide a particular type of programming that is valuable.
No convincing argument exists for this view. A wide variety of news and media platforms cater to a diverse set of demands and viewpoints: Disney and Adult Swim for different age groups; The Atlantic and Fox News for different political demographics. So, assuming done in a constitutionally valid way, eliminating CPB funding is the right policy.
This is not to say CPB-backed stations should disappear; only that they should compete on the same footing as other outlets. NPR, PBS, and their affiliates can—and already do—attract listener donations, corporate underwriting, foundation grants, and digital subscription revenue. Freed from federal appropriations, they would retain full editorial independence while sparing taxpayers the cost and constitutional headaches that accompany government patronage of the press.
 | A guest post by
|
Agreed, and don't need to repeat the others' comments. Now I listen to NPR daily as I drive to and fro, and I have done so for decades, and I trust the factuality of its reporting. I do however, have to sigh and roll my eyes occasionally. Is it just me, or has NPR become more "liberal" in its leanings over the last decade? Particularly in the choice of the people it chooses to interview and the stories it devotes air time to? Maybe it's just me. But, I certainly find it to be left of center these days. That doesn't bother me, cuz I get plenty of right-of-center views from elsewhere where I live in NC. But I agree the government funding should not really be supporting a program that by it's very nature is gonna contain political editorial choices, and I can't imagine what NPR would look like if the current federal administration, rather then defunding it, forced it to kow-tow to it's ideology. So, be free, NPR - I will even start sending you money!!!
In an age where we are saturated with content it makes no sense to claim that some content has to be paid for by an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence.