Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, February 6, 1995 TAG: 9502080008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARC JAMES SMALL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The primary thrust of the argument to do away with public funding is that it is unfair to tax the general population for the benefit of the few. Public broadcasting simply has little market penetration for the very reasons that make it so utile; it provides programming that is commercially unacceptable and that would thus fail if driven by advertising. Commercial classical-music stations, for instance, have a weak record of success even in markets far larger than ours.
But to say that is not to argue that this funding must come from tax dollars. All too many of our citizens appear to consider governmental budgets as amorphous masses of money that can be cut up as the legislature and executive wish. This, of course, is not the case at all: Tax dollars represent money taken by the threat of force from the people, and properly ought to be treated as a trust to be taken only with extreme regret and to be spent only when absolutely necessary for national survival.
To spend tax dollars on the ``nice to haves'' is to cheat the people from whom these dollars are taken, and I do not believe even the most fervid advocate of governmental funding of public broadcasting sees it as aught but a ``nice to have.''
The argument has been advanced with some vigor that public broadcasting benefits the whole populace, but this is an argument whose strength is sapped by the minute market-segment who enjoy its programming. Certainly, people from many walks of life do watch PBS or listen to NPR - but theirs should be the burden of paying for the pleasure they derive. Let those who benefit foot the bill; not those who may not even know of the existence of public broadcasting.
Certainly, the diversity offered by public broadcasting is of some worth, but this is an argument of less vitality than two decades ago, now that cable brings us A&E, Discovery and The Learning Channel. Diversity is certainly of value, but it ought not be used to justify imposing a benefit to a few on the general public.
The primary lesson of the political upheaval of 1994 is that the people have come to distrust the approach taken by elected officials toward their tax dollars. The voters, simply put, insisted last fall that the politicians treat their dollars as sacred and want strict accountability. They have chosen to do away with the frills and are demanding that legislators account for every cent and dime obligated in the public behalf.
I listen to NPR from first light until the dark of night and yet I rarely make a direct contribution. The reasoning is duplex but simple. First, I do contribute, and contribute heavily, when the government savages my bank account each spring. Cut my tax obligation - and I mean a dramatic cut, to half or a third of present extortionate levels - and I will munificently endow NPR with a song in my heart.
Second, I am more than a bit nervous over the editorial content shown by ``Morning Edition'' and ``All Things Considered.'' They advocate positions I find loathesome, they condemn that which I find worthwhile and useful. Yet, nonetheless, NPR constitutes, after the print media, almost my only source of news, as I watch television but an hour or two a month. That is sufficient reason by itself for me to swallow my concerns and give generously once that burden of the forced levy of taxes is lifted from me.
And, of course, those who view government monies as coming from nowhere miss this very point, that the cut in tax rates that will result once the extras are stripped from the budget will generate a vast tide of available funds for charitable giving, much of which will undoubtedly find its way into the coffers of public broadcasting.
The bulk of financing for public broadcasting does not come from governmental sources but is raised by private contribution; surely the additional step to making this the entire source for its funding is both feasible and relatively simple. To whinge that the elimination of public funding will eliminate stations is terrible logic and terrible ethics: The elimination of government funding will simply mean that stations will have to seek more private contributions and thus will no longer live like vultures on monies thieved from those who never use their services.
The European pattern of government-owned broadcast networks has no applicability here. While BBC was always given as the model when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created, the sober truth is that BBC is not government-funded in an American sense, but raises its budget from the license fees levied on radio and television sets. And, even in the United Kingdom, the decline in the BBC's audience penetration has brought about such innovations as ITV and the ``pirate stations'' that provide American programming to sate the appetite of the British public for gore, violence and glitter.
I am not advocating that the citizenry ignore public broadcasting; I rarely pass up an opportunity to encourage my acquaintances to listen to the news programming, or to ``Car Talk,'' or Garrison Keillor, or such other show as might suit their particular fancy. But I recognize that public broadcasting has a slight market penetration and its audience is but a thin slice of the public. Admittedly, this slice is one that other stations would love to enjoy, as it is at the top in terms of both education and income. But however advantaged and elite the listeners and watchers of public broadcasting may be, they are numerically a pittance.
And this is the acme of unfairness, to tax the public and dedicate the funds so raised to the benefit of the very few. It is unfair to the public, and it is unfair to the rest of the broadcast community. It is an unfairness to the level that is offensive to our system of governance, which holds as a fundamental tenet that public funds ought only be spent on items of good for the entire body politic and not just for the benefit of a minor portion, however gifted that portion might be.
These same arguments, that private giving can replace public funding and that it is unethical to commit tax dollars for the benefit of a small group, explain much of the public resistance on issues such as access to national parks and to welfare, while the even deeper issue of spending government funds in ways offensive to the ethical and religious beliefs of individual taxpayers underlies the resistance of pacifists to military funding and that of many of the populace to government funding of abortions.
Perhaps an easy way around this would be to provide a check-off form which we could file annually with our taxes, directing how our forced levy is to be spent. But this would take all of the steam from pork-barreling and log-rolling, so I suspect it will be a matter of ages before such a proposal received ready consideration by our elected officials.
It has been some seven centuries since Robin Hood developed that greatest of public-relations campaigns, that he ``stole from the rich and gave to the poor.'' Government funding of public broadcasting, alas, reverses this and ``steals from the poor and gives to the rich.''
Let us hope there is a sufficient sense of both sagacity and ethics in Richmond and Washington to reverse this and to accept that public broadcasting's place is to base its existence not on the backs of an uncaring citizenry, but by raising its funding from those who benefit thereby.
Marc James Small of Roanoke is a lawyer.
by CNB