Even if we had a giant budget surplus, federal subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be misguided and improper. In an environment where excessive federal spending is strangling growth and threatening the nation’s solvency, the argument to defund PBS and NPR is even stronger – particularly when private funding easily could replace the $422 million provided by federal taxpayers.
I suppose the fact that PBS and NPR have a statist bias is another argument for getting rid of taxpayer subsidies, but that’s barely a blip on my radar screen. It wouldn’t matter if government TV and radio was genuinely fair and balanced. Taxpayers should not subsidize broadcasting of any kind, period.
Moreover, as explained by Professor William Shughart of the University of Mississippi, the private market provides high-quality and niche programming, thus debunking the traditional pro-CPB argument for taking tax dollars from middle-class people to support the viewing and listening habits of upper-income people.
…congressional appropriations for CPB, the primary channel through which tax dollars are funneled to PBS television and NPR, amounted to $422 million. …about 15 percent to 20 percent of public broadcasting’s operating expenses are financed by federal taxpayers. Over the last four years, private donations, both in cash and in kind, accounted for about 33 to 39 percent of the public media’s annual revenue. State and local governments, foundations, colleges and universities, both public and private, contributed another 29 percent of the total. Supporters of continued taxpayer support of CPB and its affiliated local stations argue that $400 million is a small price to pay for financing a voice “independent” of the commercial media. Juan Williams, recently fired in response to his expression of unease in boarding aircraft with obviously Muslim passengers, would beg to differ, as many other Americans would. …the History and Discovery channels, Public Radio International, American Public Media, and SIRIUS satellite radio, among others, compete effectively with NPR and PBS—and millions of Americans willingly pay for commercially distributed content. If NPR and public television cannot survive in such an environment without taxpayer subsidies, they should be allowed to go the way of the dodo bird.
International Liberty 
[…] I don’t like the idea of government-financed media, but my philosophical objections haven’t prevented me […]
[…] A very helpful message from Count von Count, but it doesn’t change my mind about eliminating his taxpayer subsidies. […]
[…] is music to my ears. As I wrote more than six years […]
[…] after low-hanging fruit such as the Small Business Administration, National Endowment for the Arts, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or Legal Services […]
[…] involves the Greek equivalent of a mooching Big Bird-style state-run media. Let’s start with an excerpt from the UK-based […]
[…] already written about the need to defund state radio and state TV, so this was music to my […]
While I do think NPR and PBS should be left to sink or swim on their own (and I have little doubt quality programs like Sesame Street would survive), I submit that calling Big Bird and Sesame Street “leeches” is not the best way to win friends and influence people. 🙂 Just a friendly suggestion.
If the private sector could do Sesame Street, you’d have a point.
But in 40 years, the private sector has utterly and completely failed to come up with anything half as good as Sesame Street.
Typical of the barbarians who invaded Rome: Tear down the good, just for the fun of it.
Complaining about NPR and PBS is akin to complaining about the food when you’re on death row. Yeah, it sucks, but surely there’s something more pressing that’s worthy of your attention. And while NPR and PBS do participate in some pro-state propaganda, it’s not like they’re complete tools, certainly not as bad as most corporate news organizations. As for the market stepping up to provide an NPR-like station, I could see that happening. But the Telecomm Act of 1996 created a pretty high barrier to entry (as I’m sure it was intended to do). It would probably take some restructuring of frequency licensing if NPR were to be dissolved, so whatever came up in its place would face some pretty staunch entrenched interests (Mr. Murdoch and such) in trying to hold on to some bandwidth.
So, just to be clear, I’m not trying to justify NPR and PBS’s continued existence, but given that Car Talk and Prairie Home Companion are responsible for substantially fewer deaths than most other government programs, I think it should probably be closer to the bottom of the list of things free market activists fight against.
Steve,
Fortunately the Constitution specifically says that the government cannot establish its own religion, while only protecting the freedom of the press. It doesn’t say it can’t create its own press. Of course, the idea that the government can act unless it’s specifically prohibited turns the Constitution on its head. Maybe if the words, “This Government of The United States may not act separately from the limited powers granted to it by this Constitution” it would have eliminated at least some of the confusion.
Back to the point about eliminating PBS and NPR:
An interesting test for your liberal friends… if they listen to (and therefore oppose the elimination of) NPR, ask them if they read/listen to news from Voice of America. Isn’t that just tax-supported government propaganda? Then ask them what makes the difference between news from VoA, which is government-funded and NPR which is government-funded.
I’ve often wondered why “separation of press and state” is less sacred than “separation of church and state.”