Should NPR Be Killed in Order to Save It?
The recent $200M bequest to the NPR Endowment by the estate of McDonald’s fortune widow Joan Kroc opened a new debate about the role of public broadcasting in Rush Limbaugh’s America. Like many good urban liberals, I listen to a lot of NPR when I bother to listen to the radio at all. Here in Seattle, we have two NPR stations plus the Paul Allen-funded KEXP, which broadcasts Pacifica News. At night, we also get the Canadian stations. So there’s no lack of independent views available to those who want to hear them.
By contrast, on the television airwaves, Seattle is the proud owner of the most financially precarious public television station of any major metropolitan market. Considering the wealth and progressive views of the populace here, this is scandalous, but Channel Nine’s problems are strictly of its own making. Foolish decisions, lousy management and perhaps out-and-out corruption have left Big Bird’s nest nearly bare, and the station’s panhandling has become even more desperate and shrill during its ceaseless fundraising efforts.
It’s no secret that the entire institution of public broadcasting has been under perpetual attack by conservative critics since the 1980s, driven partly by distaste for the urban-elite intellectual and cultural bias which NPR and the CPB indisputably represent, and partly out of principled views on limited government and the free market. While I don’t share the critics’ distaste for the programming, and I am not entirely convinced that a democratic government should have no role in the public life of the country, I am beginning to think that this is one area of the cultural battlefield where liberals should make an orderly retreat. Here’s why.
First, the entire notion of “public broadcasting” has changed dramatically since the mid-60s era. Broadcast spectrum is more commoditized, and must compete with other information channels like the Internet and cable, which provide a flourishing outlet for diverse views.
More significantly, we have lost national consensus on what constitutes our culture, and what views are universal enough to represent on our publicly-owned airwaves. Back in the 60s, there was some agreement that, for example, classical music and arts programming needed public support to compensate for its limited commercial viability because the Arts were Good Things for Americans. Thanks to a coalition of leftist and rightist populists, this view is now considered elitism pure and simple. Perhaps this is truer to the democratic spirit of America, where the free market is the only valid barometer of quality.
Finally, government support has, for many years, been a drag on the independence and creativity of public broadcasting. Since the early 1990s, public broadcasting has noticeably toned down its coverage and homogenized its programming to stem attacks from conservative critics. Making a clean break from the government’s teat would make life harder for some stations, but in the long run would be a good thing for both the institution and its audience.
I would argue that there is still a need for public programming on the airwaves, which, after all, belong to all Americans. But that programming should probably look more like C-SPAN and less like “All Things Considered”: boring, informational, and perhaps a DMZ in the culture wars where both sides agree to let the data do the talking rather than make everything about spin and propaganda.
Likewise, there is still a vast need for progressive views and even “elitist” views: not just political, but cultural – and not just in urban enclaves where the population is willing and able to give audience support. As Mrs. Kroc’s bequest proves, the elite has ample resources to fund its own communications channels if it so chooses. Relying on an increasingly hostile government and an indifferent citizenry to support quality programming for intelligent and inquisitive listeners is a poor strategy for the less kind, less gentle 21st century. Accelerating the shift to quasi-public foundations and non-profit boards will also have the effect of making management more accountable – if not to the public, then to those people who have voted with their pocket books to provide programming that reflects their cultural viewpoint.
The Right has done this to great success over the years, and has managed to propagate its narrow views to an increasingly large popular audience as a result. Many right-wing organs like the Washington Times, The American Standard and the New York Post remain money-losing vanity projects of reactionary plutocrats, but at least they are willing to put their money where their mouths are, regardless of the views of the marketplace. Others, like Fox, have turned the corner into profitability. The Left, and especially the so-called elites on the Left, should learn from this example. It’s not the money that’s lacking: it’s the will. And wouldn’t it be ironic if the impetus for a sea-change in the role of the CPB and NPR came from a fortune made from the business that represents above all others the poor taste and quality of “commodity America” that so appalls many NPR listeners: McDonald’s!
10:49:52 AM 
|
|
