comments_image -

Wavelengths: Public Radio, Private Pressures

While listeners rely on public radio stations as virtually the last bastion of serious news and talk, their dependence on corporate underwriting raises some very troubling issues.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

A report that WBUR Radio (90.9 FM) and National Public Radio have been targeted by corporate underwriters for their alleged anti-Israeli bias underscores a little-understood fact: so-called public radio today is, in many respects, public in name only.

According to an article in Wednesday's Boston Globe by media reporter Mark Jurkowitz, both Hillel Stavis, president of WordsWorth Books, in Harvard Square, and Robert Shillman, CEO of Cognex Corporation, in Natick, have suspended their support for the station, with Shillman citing "a profoundly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias" on WBUR and NPR. A third corporate underwriter, New England Mobile Book Fair, is reportedly rethinking its contributions as well.

Business owners and corporate executives obviously have a right to fund or not fund programs as they see fit. What's interesting -- and a little unnerving -- about the Globe report is that it reveals the extent to which public radio has morphed from a taxpayer-funded service into what is essentially a private, nonprofit broadcasting operation designed to serve contributors, whether they be underwriters or ordinary listeners.

NPR, which produces the drive-time news programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered -- each of which is heard by some 10 million people every week -- receives virtually none of its money from the federal government. Instead, its $90 million budget is paid largely in the form of fees from its 650 member stations, including WBUR, which is operated by Boston University.

And the stations themselves subsist almost entirely on private money. For instance, according to 'BUR spokeswoman Mary Stohn, less than $1.2 million of the station's $20 million budget for the fiscal year that ended on June 30 came from federal tax money -- that is, about six percent. By contrast, $8 million came from listener contributions, and $7.3 million came from corporate underwriting.

WBUR general manager Jane Christo was unavailable for comment. Stohn, asked about the pressure from underwriters that public broadcasters find themselves under these days, declined to address the issue directly. Of the complaints by Stavis and Shillman, she says, "We feel that the coverage is fair and balanced, but we respect their opinion. They're entitled to how they feel and they're entitled to withdraw their support."

Public radio is a remarkable success story -- and at a time when much of commercial radio has degenerated into a merger-fueled frenzy of offensiveness and stupidity, public stations are virtually the last bastion of serious news and talk. But the dependence on corporate funding raises some troubling issues.

Veteran broadcaster Danny Schechter, executive editor of the media-watch Web site MediaChannel.org, notes that public radio has changed from a financially strapped grassroots medium for community activists and students into a professional service with salaries as high as, or sometimes higher than, the ones available in commercial radio. With these higher costs, Schechter says, the need for corporate money has become even more crucial. He observes, "Stations have become dependent on this support in order to maintain their lifestyle."

Jerry Starr, executive director of Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting, advocates a "public broadcasting trust," to be funded through a dedicated tax, that would protect stations from corporate pressure. "Public broadcasting's complete dependence on underwriting, which is a euphemism for commercials, has made it vulnerable to these kinds of pressures," Starr says.

Yet the pressure being brought to bear on WBUR does represent a kind of rough accountability. It doesn't take much imagination to wonder whether the accountability that Starr wants to see -- national and community boards that are "broadly inclusive" and that would exercise real governing authority - might embrace an excess of political correctness and a bland inoffensiveness. No improvement there.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]