Public Broadcasting:The Non-Commercial Alternative.

University Degree Media Studies

Public Broadcasting:

The Non-Commercial Alternative

Maggie McDonald

Jessica Morse

Trudy Loper

Corey Sherbino

The Corporation of Public Broadcasting and

Programming Issues

Public Broadcasting is excellence in the community. It organizes volunteers to help serve their communities. Local stations reach beyond their world of regularity and programming to assist the community in addressing matters such as violence and literacy. General audience programming, rich in culture and information, help stimulate life long learning. Public broadcasters bring to their communities programs that help bridge the gap in America between different racial and ethnic groups.

Founded by Congress in 1967, the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a private non-profit organization that promotes public telecommunications services. The mission of the CPB is to facilitate the development of and ensure universal access to non-commercial high-quality programming. The organization tries to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public. Another mission of the CPB is to address the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities. It does this by specifically programming and targeting certain shows towards these audiences. The CPB devotes time in more that 1,000 local radio and television stations throughout the United States. It gives its services, its programs, and its ideas to these stations to help provide higher entertainment for nearly every household in the country. It is the largest single source of funding for public television and radio programming. The CPB funds diverse and original programming that is educational and intellectual.

Public broadcasting provides educational programs to schools, communities and special outreach programs. It also provides programming and services to local and national radio and television networks.

Public Broadcasting is probably most well known for its children’s programming which helps parents and teachers educate children. The shows like Sesame Street, Barney, and Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, have helped children learn for decades now. This was originally intended to help decrease a problem known as the Knowledge Gap, but case studies have shown that these programs have actually widened the knowledge gap because children of higher socioeconomic status as well as children of the lower socioeconomic status would watch the same programming. Both children would benefit from it, but the higher status children’s parents and teachers would be more likely to reinforce what they saw on television in the home and at school.

Financial

Public broadcasting has an extremely diverse funding base, more diverse than its commercial counterpart. There are many sources of revenue for public broadcasting, but are all of these sources enough?

Public broadcasting receives income from two main sources: the federal government and nonfederal sources. Currently, the federal government subsidizes approximately 14% of Public Broadcasting Service’s (PBS) revenue via congressional appropriations. (While PBS is not the only distributor of public broadcasting, it is the oldest, largest and most well known in this country. There is a lot of information available regarding funding and other aspects of PBS, therefore PBS serves as an excellent reference for funding of public broadcasting.) The CPB allocates these appropriations. The CPB receives funds primarily from the federal government and is governed by a board of directors selected by the President (Noam 75).

The advantages of federal funding are that there are fewer strings attached to it than most other types of funding. Stations can use federal funding for programs that cannot get corporate/private funding. Those few strings that are attached to federal funding benefit parts of the population (minorities and rural areas) that are underserved by commercial stations (Current Online).

“Most polls show the majority of the public wants Congress to continue helping public broadcasting. When they compare it with other public services, they value it more highly than all except the armed forces and law enforcement” (Current Online). Unfortunately, federal funding has repeatedly been cutback for public broadcasting. This forces public broadcasting stations to solicit revenues from alternative sources.

Nonfederal sources collectively comprise a majority of the funding for public broadcasting and include the following:

State and local government
Viewer and listener membership
Foundations and large donations
Ancillary/auxiliary products
Business underwriting

The most significant of these are viewer and listener membership, ancillary products and business underwriting (Current Online).

This is a preview of the whole essay

Nonfederal sources collectively comprise a majority of the funding for public broadcasting and include the following:

State and local government
Viewer and listener membership
Foundations and large donations
Ancillary/auxiliary products
Business underwriting

The most significant of these are viewer and listener membership, ancillary products and business underwriting (Current Online).

Viewer and listener membership consist of those dreaded pledge drives that PBS airs on a regular basis. To clarify, the national network of PBS has nothing to do with pledge drives. These drives are aired by local stations. While this form of fundraising is effective to a certain extent because quite a bit of money is raised, these drives turn people off through annoyance. Most audience members do not tune in for the purpose of seeing a pledge drive. Innovative changes need to be made so that pledge drives are not a major part of PBS’s fundraising. For example, Chicago’s WTTW uses its website to facilitate all fundraising (Kloer).

Ancillary/auxiliary products provide income when sold to the public. These products include videocassette sales, income from educational books and toys, and lending the name of the station to a retail store (i.e. Store of Knowledge) (Current Online). The prime example of ancillary product income is “Barney & Friends.” It has been cited that the income from this show has “grown from hundreds of thousands to billions of dollars, though the actual net income to the show’s producers is more likely in the tens of millions and just a fraction of that is available to public TV.” In this case, the rights holder, Lyons Group, received most of the royalties whereas public television had no rights to share in those proceeds (Behrens). While this source of income will always be a part of public broadcasting, the amount of revenue is minimal. “Revenues from product licensing are ‘too small and uncertain to be relied upon’” (Current Online), thus other options still must be sought out. Revenues from these types of sources depend on clever manipulation of legal agreements between the multiple parties involved in royalty negotiations.

Business underwriting is the most controversial topic in public broadcasting right now. “The Communications Act of 1934 forbids noncommercial stations from accepting compensation to broadcast messages that ‘promote any service, facility or product offered by any person who is engaged in such offering for profit” (Redmont). This act has not been closely followed in the past and recently has been altered by the allowance of commercials. “Noncommerical TV stations will be allowed to use part of their digital spectrum to offer commercial services, including advertising-supported services, the FCC decided” (McConnell).

This new source of income will allow public broadcasting stations to advance more quickly technologically, alongside their commercial counterparts. There will be more flexibility and a greater ability to diversify programming. The new rules do put major stipulations on these advertising services, but the stipulations are vague. “A substantial majority” of the broadcasts must still be devoted to noncommercial activity. In addition, 5% of the resulting revenue will go directly to the U.S. Treasury; the same is true of commercial stations (McConnell).

Many individuals do not support this change because noncommercial television seems to be moving towards a commercial venture. The legislature will have to keep a close eye on this because eventually, noncommercial television, as we know it, may not exist.

A variety of alternatives to the current methods of receiving income have been proposed. Some of these include setting up a trust fund that would provide funding in lieu of the federal funding. Others have proposed the concept of consolidation, having multiple stations work together on programming so that costs are cut.

While it does appear that there are many sources of income for public broadcasting, it is very difficult to decide how much money is enough to keep the stations afloat. Programming costs an incredible amount of money and is usually the burden of individual stations, not national networks. Also, programming costs are not distributed evenly between different stations, thus it is very difficult to even estimate how much is needed (Noam 78). There is one definite need for funding and that is the conversion to digital broadcasting. In that respect, there is no doubt that the national network, PBS, and local stations need a tremendous amount of funding – more than each of them is receiving presently.

Most of the public broadcasting income is “audience sensitive.” This means that as audience numbers increase, so will funding (Current Online). Therefore the key to soliciting more funding is creating a program line-up that will attract the largest audience. PBS is currently trying to air more popular programs and increase the audience. With a larger audience will come more money!!!

Comparisons to Other Countries’ Public Broadcasters

After considering public broadcasting in the United States, programming and financial goals, one must consider public broadcasting in other countries. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) are worth noting here.

The BBC was established in the 1920s by John Reith (Fraser 173) and began “regularly scheduled television programming on November 2, 1936” (Handout 1.02). Reith “saw the public broadcaster as an instrument to create ‘a more intelligent and enlightened electorate,’ thus making a direct link between electronic communications and democratic leadership” (Fraser 173).

Throughout the majority of its history, the BBC was commercial-free and sustained itself through license fees that were added to the price of television sets. The BBC also had a duopolistic pact with the private ITV network—all advertising revenues went to ITV while the non-commercial BBC received the licensing fees (Fraser 174). Because the BBC was not trying to appeal to the masses in order to attract advertisers, it could offer high-quality content without undue influence. In turn, the private stations competed upmarket against the BBC, “channeling commercial profits into the production of high-quality British television dramas” (Fraser 144).

In recent years, the BBC has been going through a “commercial revolution” (Fraser 175). It has added five new over-the-air channels and five new commercial channels launched in cooperation with the U.S. Discovery Channel (Fraser 175). Furthermore, in 1999 a new commercial subsidiary, BBC Worldwide, was formed “to pursue commercial joint ventures and exploit the BBC’s vast library of content” (Fraser 175). This shows the move toward the commercialization of public broadcasting that is taking place here in the United States as well. The arguments against this trend range from the inevitable lowering of public broadcasting programming standards and the ability to use public funding to compete unfairly against private broadcasters (Fraser 176).

The CBC has a different story, as indicated by Matthew Fraser in Free-For-All. CBC Television went on the air on September 6, 1952; however, American television had already been on the air in Canada for four-and-a-half years. The CBC itself was a state-owned monopoly, and as the first television broadcaster in Canada scheduled programs that appealed to the masses. Because the CBC attracted a mass audience, it also attracted advertisers and their advertising dollars. Consequently, the CBC was not a distinctive non-commercial broadcaster, as was the BBC, but rather a mass-audience outlet like the American networks ABC, NBC, and CBS. Thus, from its inception the CBC was confronted with a profound paradox: “Its commercialism contradicted the public-service values that inspired public broadcasters in other countries” (Fraser 137).

In its history, the CBC also faced another problem: “the rapid Americanization of Canadian television” (Fraser 142). To combat this phenomenon, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission created Canadian Content quotas for all networks, although the quotas were higher for the CBC. In order to finance the Canadian programming, Canadian networks were allowed to simulcast more appealing American programming in order to generate advertising revenue to be used as investments in Canadian programming. However, this forced the CBC to compete down market against private stations, leaving the spirit of the trade-off unfulfilled (Fraser144). Canadians were left watching Dallas on the CBC as well as many other (more –profitable) American programs on it while other networks had little to no Canadian programming (Fraser 145).

By the mid-1990s, CBC Television had virtually Canadianized its prime-time schedule, learning that its strength should be its distinctiveness rather than its commercialism (Fraser 164). In this way, the BBC and the CBC are moving toward one another. The BBC is shifting from non-commercial to commercial, while the CBC is slowly turning from its commercialism and differentiating itself from other broadcasters (although not entirely).

The Digital Deadline

Analog is ending while digital is taking over. This is the basic idea behind the development of technology in television. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is trying to keep the United States up to date, as compared to the more advanced countries of Japan and Europe. In order to understand why the FCC has ordered television stations to make the change, it is important to understand how digital is different from analog and how it affects television stations.

Efficiency is the key idea behind digital. Audio, video, and data is carried in a computerized format (using the binary code of 1’s and 0’s), known as ‘bits,’ from source A to receiver A. Once the data has reached receiver A (audience’s television), the ‘bits’ are converted into pixels, or picture elements. The greater number of pixels, the better quality of the image on the television. With DTV and its High Definition TV, the viewing audience will receive pictures of higher quality than with their analog systems (CDTV). The Moving Picture Experts Group-2 (MPEG-2) was developed at Columbia University in 1993 to aid in the efficiency in “the all-digital transmission of broadcast television.” (Redmont) The MPEG-2 is a decoder within the digital technologies that reads bit streams from other digital technologies and increases the quality of audio and visual on the television (Digitaltelevision).

In 1997, Industry Canada adopted the new standards for digital television, ATSC. Based on these new ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) standards, the entire process from creation to viewing of programs is digital. This means that the equipment is digital, the method of transmission is digital, and the way to view the program is done through digital equipment. This differs from the current NTSC (National Television Systems Committee) standards in the respect that NTSC is based on an analog system. Just as ATSC standards are digital from beginning to end, NTSC standards are analog from beginning to end (CDTV).

Setting the regulations and deadlines may be easier to write down on paper than to actually do. The FCC has set a schedule of deadlines that television stations nationwide, both commercial and non-commercial, must meet. The first deadline is set for all commercial stations. By May 1, 2002, all affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) must have started their DTV service. One year following, May 1, 2003, all non-commercial educational television stations must have started their DTV service (Digitaltelevision). This breaks down to a 50-month stretch for commercial stations and a 62-month stretch for non-commercial stations from the start to begin DTV service (Digitaltelevision). Before beginning, though, each station must complete two tasks. First, they must acquire permits from the FCC to begin service, and second, they must have the proper equipment to produce and transmit programs (Digitaltelevision). The final deadline that the FCC has set for digital to replace analog is 2006, but a problem exists. A mandate has been enacted requiring at least 85% of all televisions (in the United States) to either be DTV or have the proper converter box to receive digital. Currently, cable reaches just under 70% of US televisions, leaving a large enough gap for some experts to worry about the deadline. It is estimated that the conversion to digital may not actually happen until 2008 or later (Digitaltelevision).

So where does this leave the audience and non-commercial public television stations? The audience is given three broadcast formats to watch television and six ways to see DTV. The three basic formats are analog, which is currently the standard, Standard DTV (SDTV), and High Definition TV (HDTV) (Fishcetti). The six available ways to see DTV today are from Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Personal Digital Video Recorders, Digital Video/Versatile Disc (DVD), Digital cable TV, Broadband Internet, and Terrestrial Broadcast Internet (Redmont). What the conversion also means for the audience is that they/we will have to purchase digital-ready equipment, including our televisions. If a digital television has not been purchased by the conversion, a converter box can be bought to hook to the analog television to translate the digital information. Public broadcast stations will also have to purchase new digital-ready equipment; not only to keep up with technology, but also because the FCC has passed that regulation as already mentioned (Redmont). The stations, to reduce cost, may also have to share facilities with commercial stations. All efforts will be made to ensure that the United States is ready to go all digital when the time comes.

Conclusion

While public broadcasting accomplishes its goals very differently from that of its commercial counterpart and its corresponding foreign broadcasters, it does seem to accomplish its goal for the most part. The diverse programming of public broadcasting is reaching many, including children, and helping to educate people nationwide. There is a steady flow of income from a variety of sources. With the change in business underwriting rules, there should be a much higher income stream to help facilitate the digital changeover. From analog to digital, all aspects of television (funding, programming, regulation, and technology) have been and are going to continue to change. Each affects another, and it is with their compliance with one another that is going to take us into the digital era.

Works Cited

Behrens, Steve. “What did Barney earn, and why didn’t PBS get more?” Current. March 6, 1995.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. http://www.cpb.org

Current Online – News About Public Broadcasting. http://www.current.org

Fraser, Matthew. Free-for-All: The Struggle for Dominance on the Digital Frontier. Canada: Stoddart Publishing Co.: 1999.

Kloer, Phil. “Not the Same Old PBS.” The Atlanta Journal. Atlanta, GA: July 1, 2001.

McConnell, Bill. “No pledge week?: Noncommercial stations get OK to get bucks from spectrum.” Broadcasting & Cable. October 15, 2001.

National Public Broadcasting Archives, UM Libraries. http://www.lib.umd.edu/NPBA/

Noam, Eli M., Jens Waltermann (eds.). Public Television in America. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers: 1998.

PBA Online. http://www.wpba.org/

PBS Online. http://www.pbs.org

Redmont, Bernard S. “Public Television and the Camel’s Nose.” Television Quarterly. Volume 31, Number 1. Spring 2000.

Severin, Werner J. and James W. Tankard, Jr. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 5th Ed. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.: 2001.

Western New York Public Broadcasting Association. http://www.wned.org/Default.asp

CDTV.

Digitaltelevision.