THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 29, 1995 TAG: 9501280096
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Beth Barber
LENGTH: Medium: 59 lines
Warthogs have never been high on my list of entertainers, but I spent an hour not long ago enthralled by them. It was one of those nature shows that leave me wondering not just at filmmakers' interminable patience but at the commonality of liv-ing things. Such as, all mammal babies are cute; they have to be, because they're so much trouble.
I wonder now what channel this show was on. It could have been A&E. Or Discovery. Or PBS. Which is why public broadcasting's claim on tax money weakens hourly: It's no longer the sole source of ``quality'' programming - or the sole arbiter of ``quality.''
Public television, like public radio, now has many competitors. They don't get 13 percent of their budget from the nation's taxpayers, or 25 percent from the state's (some half-million of which pays for educational public-school public TV, and which Governor Allen will not cut). On the contrary, they pay state and federal taxes. Cable even collects from sub-scribers taxes for lo-cal treasuries.
But according to public broadcasters, their ``quality'' programming - that is, untainted by trade or the tastes of the hoi polloi - won't exist without an annual grant of $1.09 per American.
If so piddling, why so crucial? Because for this year's $285 million, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had to woo only 218 congressmen, 51 senators and one president, not 260 million mostly hoi polloi? No. Because, according to PBS, each $1.09 in tax money attracts $7 from private donors.
Foundations ``underwrite for content'' - pay for programs that reflect their concerns, something advertisers on non-public stations are denied or chid-ed for. Corporations pay for ``disclosures''; that's PBS-ese for the tasteful, dignified soundbite commercials that begin and end a program. Ty-D-Bowl and Tampax aren't among them, which might be reason enough to support taxes for PBS . . . if public broadcasting didn't have sources of revenue scarcely tapped . . . if commercial broad-casters weren't offering ``qual-i-ty'' pro-grams . . . if there were no pattern of liberal bias.
Suppose more than the current one in 10 members of public broadcasting's audience donated personally to the cause, by check or by pay-per-view.
Suppose public broad-cast-ing paid for itself by contracting a public share of the profits it has enabled a select few to reap. Ken Burns made $60 million from merchandising ``The Civil War.'' ``Sesame Street'' makes a billion a year from lunchboxes and such. ``Barney'' has all but copyrighted purple.
Suppose, too, that public broadcasting had to make its programming and employment contracts public. You'd think the law would require that non-profit, therefore tax-exempt recipients of public money nevertheless account routinely and pub-lic-ly for at least the public portion of their funds, or at least provide such accountings when asked. Not so.
As for bias, well, suppose Pat Murphy followed ``Morning Edition'' and Rush Limbaugh hosted ``Washington Week in Review.'' Would the folks now arguing so forcefully for public broadcasting still argue so forcefully for it? by CNB