----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I am forwarding this piece by Wally Bowen and hope that others on this list find it informative in regards to the current debate concerning public television. AS >Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 16:44:23 -0500 (EST) >(Following is a draft op-ed on the public broadcasting debate by Wally Bowen >of Citizens for Media Literacy in Asheville, N.C. Comments would be >appreciated at <[log in to unmask]>. Internet distribution is encouraged. All >rights reserved. For other publication, please contact the author. Copyright >Wally Bowen 1995) > > Barney and Big Bird going head to head Jan. 19 with radical >right-wingers Reed Irvine and U.S. Sen. Larry Pressler was like watching the >lambs of public broadcasting being led to the slaughter. > Barney and Big Bird's defenselessness was underscored by the total >silence of public broadcasting officials in rebutting the right-wing charge of >liberal bias in PBS programming. > Right-wing opponents of PBS enjoyed the best of both worlds. By going >unchallenged, their charges of liberal bias gained credence. By arguing the >superiority of the commercial marketplace, they offered "safe haven" for >successful PBS creations like Big Bird and Barney. > So it was no surprise to see Pressler's quick follow-up to the Jan. >19 hearing when he floated stories about media giants Bell Atlantic and Jones >Intercable's interest in buying up parts of public broadcasting. We'll hear >more from the media barons who would own PBS when Pressler's Senate Commerce >Committee holds hearings in coming weeks. > This push to privatize public broadcasting demands close scrutiny. >It's clear that PBS made poor business decisions by not getting a bigger cut >of >the Barney and Big Bird's profits. But allowing taxpayers to be ripped off a >second time with a fire-sale give-away of valuable public assets would only >add >insult to injury. > Who wins and who loses by privatizing PBS? A little history sheds >light on this question. > During World War One, the U.S. government poured money and talent into >perfecting a new media technology called radio. Many returning veterans with >"wireless" training helped spawn hundreds of radio stations across America >during the post-war years. By 1925, there were 128 college and university >radio stations and a similar number of stations run by a variety of >non-profits, from farmer and labor organizations to religious and civic groups. > But a problem soon arose when the frequencies of the fast-growing >commercial networks, NBC and CBS, began bumping into non-profit frequencies. >Led by NBC, commercial broadcasters lobbied the Hoover administration for >government regulation of the airwaves. > This led to the creation of the Federal Radio Commission, which NBC >and its allies packed with sympathetic attorneys and engineers. In 1928, the >FRC issued a ruling which designated non-profits as "propaganda" stations, >while commercial broadcasters were given the more benign label of "general >service" stations. > Not surprisingly, the FRC ruling favored "general service" stations >whenever frequency disputes arose. Drawn into lengthy and expensive >litigation, many non-profit stations were forced to shut down. Most of those >that survived ran head on into the Great Depression and died. > The final nail in the coffin occurred in 1934, when the networks and >their lobbying arm, the National Association of Broadcasters, defeated a move >in Congress to set aside 20 percent of the public airwaves for non-profit >stations. > One of the key arguments against the 20 percent set-aside came from >business elites who feared that non-profit radio would be used to organize >farmers and the working classes. They had reason to be concerned. > One of the most prominent non-profit stations in the late 1920s was >Chicago's WCFL, the "Voice of Farmer-Labor." Its news coverage from the >perspective of working people led one Midwest business association to issue >this dire warning: > > "Think of the speeches that may go forth. Wild and radical speeches >listened to by hundreds of thousands. These wild men in their wild talks >regardless of consequences, may reach the ear, possibly inadvertently, of your >influential and trusted employee, who may be detracted from paths favorable to >his employer's success." > > With this first attempt at "public" broadcasting successfully >defeated, the commercial networks went on to create the privatized >broadcasting >system we know today. By the 1960s, however, the TV game-show scandals and a >growing public perception of TV as "a vast wasteland" set the stage for >change. > > Following a major 1966 study commissioned by the Carnegie Endowment, >Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. But one key component of >the Carnegie study was missing: Congress should insulate public broadcasting >from political manipulation by providing an independent revenue stream in the >form of a tax on the sale of radio, TVs, and broadcast licenses. > President Lyndon Johnson supported the independent revenue stream >idea, but the issue was tabled in order to get legislation passed quickly. >Johnson believed Congress could amend the legislation the following year, but >this was never done. > By the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon and his fellow >conservatives were disgruntled over PBS documentaries such as "The Banks and >the Poor," a critical look at how banks' lending policies helped keep the >urban >poor impoverished. Hoping to avoid charges of censorship, Nixon accused >public >broadcasting of becoming too "centralized." > So on June 30, 1972, Nixon vetoed Congress' funding of public >broadcasting, which was then forced to turn to major corporations -- mainly >the >oil companies -- for support. > What America witnessed Jan. 19, 1995, therefore, was the latest twist >in the noose in a 75-year attack on public broadcasting. Those who would kill >public broadcasting today are direct descendants of the business elites who >saw >public media as a threat to their dominance of America's information order. >(Is it just coincidence that no regular PBS program with a labor perspective >ever emerged during the era of CPB's growing reliance on corporate funding?) > Now with a new information order being mapped out by today's media >barons (men like cable TV's John Malone, the networks' Rupert Murdoch and the >phone companies' Raymond Smith), the Republican Congress presents another >historic opportunity to snuff out public-sector media. > Unfortunately, those in a position to defend public broadcasting today >are prohibited by conventional wisdom from placing the battle in an historical >context of power relations between rich and poor, owners and workers. > Today's "conservative correctness" defines the fault lines in American >society along the axes of right and left, conservative and liberal, terms >whose >history seem to begin and end in the 1960s. By contrast, in the 1920s, Edward >Nockels, station manager of WCFL, could make an analysis that would be unheard >of in today's "conservatively correct" climate: "Will the public interest be >served by granting all the channels of communication to those who do the >employing and denying even one cleared channel of communication to the vast >group of employees?" > And Nockels rightly predicted that "whoever controls radio >broadcasting in the future will eventually control the nation." > Protectors of free speech have long recognized that the commercial >marketplace by its very nature serves to silence unpopular voices and >dissenting points of view. The cheer-leading media coverage of the Persian >Gulf War is one of the more obvious and recent examples of this reality. > Unfortunately, today's leaders of public broadcasting got their jobs >because of their willingness to ignore the free speech roots in the battle for >public media. > Advocates for the preservation of public broadcasting would be >well-advised to find a credible voice to tell the story of public >broadcasting's 75-year struggle for survival. Big Bird and Barney can't do it >alone. >(Wally Bowen is founder and executive director of the Asheville, N.C.-based >Citizens for Media Literacy, a member of the public-interest >Telecommunications >Policy Roundtable.) > > Allan Siegel [log in to unmask]