122
Who should pay for public radio?
How do you think public media should be funded? Commentator Tucker Carlson says cut federal funding and let the listeners pitch in.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Curious to see exactly how public media gets its funding? View the infographic
One of the on-again off-again debates in Washington is who ought to pay for public broadcasting: The government, which helps support hundreds of public radio stations across the country, or us, listeners, who give millions of dollars every year that help shows like this one get on the air.
Commentator Tucker Carlson says listeners could -- and should -- pay more.
Tucker Carlson: I love public radio. I listen to it every day. But sometimes, as I drive to my white-collar job in my expensive foreign car, surrounded by fellow public radio listeners driving to their white-collar jobs in their expensive foreign cars, I feel a little guilty. All of us are pretty affluent, I think to myself. Do we really need a federal subsidy?
I live in Washington, D.C., but the scene would be familiar to anyone who lives in Winnetka, Ill., the North Shore of Boston or the westside of L.A.: In general, the richer the zip code, the more people tune into public radio. Public radio listeners tend to have a household income more than $30,000 above the national average. They're also whiter, better educated and more than twice as likely as ordinary Americans to work in top management. Not the profile of your average welfare recipient.
Yet that's in effect what we are. Public radio receives more than $100 million a year in tax dollars. Teenaged shift workers at McDonald's, every harried single moms emptying wastebaskets at a law firm, lettuce pickers in California are laboring so that you and I -- you in your Prius, me in my Saab -- can listen to a certain sort of educated news and opinion as we cruise in air conditioned comfort to the office each day. Has there ever been a more unfair tax?
Every few years somebody in Congress tries to kill it. Public radio executives never quite defend their subsidy -- that would be impossible to do with a straight face -- but instead they respond by pointing out that lots of people really, really like public radio. That's true. Of course you could say the same thing about the Rush Limbaugh Show. And that's the point: When people like something, they'll pay for it. Public radio listeners could certainly pay the whole tab for public radio. They just don't want to. Maybe, just to be decent, we should start.
Tucker Carlson is the editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller and a member of Maine Public Broadcasting.
Share your thoughts about this or anything else you hear on the program. Post a comment below or contact us by email.
Pages
If public funding was withdrawn, "public" media would have less of an incentive to strive for objectivity and balance. Its integrity and trustworthiness depend upon public oversight. If donors were the only source of funding, public media would lose credibility and become yet another partisan news source, ... which I believe is what Mr. Carlson ultimately desires.
Comments like the ones I heard during my drive home today are what push many away from Public Radio and give some the impression that it is something for the upper class; Elitist one could say.
I was driving from my job that pays me barely enough to make it, in my simple and cheap domestic car that I only purchased after running the previous one in to the ground from 11 years of commuting to make a living, and Tucker Carlson's words were like a slap in the face. Yes, I am lucky enough to have a college education although it was paid for by the inheritance I received after losing my father while most of those my age are paying off mountains of debt they accrued fulfilling the American Legacy Dream. Having listened to Public Radio for many years, it has always been my source for keeping in touch with what is going on in the world around me yet I have struggled to be able to contribute my part. Finally, this year thanks to some financial assistance I received in my personal life, I was able to become a sustainer member during the last fund drive of my local station. It was a proud moment, and I knew that my best friend also wanted to join the ranks of contributing listeners so I loaned her the $10 for the first month. Yes, things were so financially tight for her, thanks to the aforementioned student loans, that she didn't even have the $10.
Yes, those who can should. However, Mr. Carlson needs to realize that not ALL who listen to Public Radio CAN and that the public funding exists in order to make sure that this important part of our community is able to reach those who cannot.
As a long time volunteer for our public radio station, KUSP in Santa Cruz, Ca I have answered phones from listeners who call in with their donation and appreciation for thoughtful, non-commercial radio. You should join me Tucker! Have a conversation with people who have lost their jobs but still find a few dollars to send in. Do you donate to your public radio station?
Given that most public radio listeners are college grads and earn above median wage it is apparent that they already pay for public radio through their taxes. Granted there are people that pay taxes that don't listen to public radio, but then there are many government programs that benefit only a subset of the population. At least anybody with a radio can choose to listen to NPR if they wish. Lynden Johnson's sentiment in signing the CPB act and the words of the act itself are as pertinent today as they were in 1967; "The Congress hereby finds and declares that it is in the public interest [...]".
I consider public broadcasting the best public education I've ever gotten. I'm so grateful that it's been available to me when I can't afford to pay for my membership as well as when I can. Our society is so over commercialized, I'm SO grateful that I can listen to my public stations without commercial interuptions. I also consider myself an owner, and I know I can trust that there isn't any ulterior agenda as with almost all of the privately held media outlets. It's one of the best ideas our government ever had, and probably the only government service that I use. Hands off my PBS!!
This stunningly elitist commentary conveniently and predictably skews facts in support of a flawed assumption. Big surprise. Carlson cheerfully dismisses the thousands, possibly millions, of school children who regularly connect, enjoy, and benefit from public broadcasting, precisely because it's provided without charge, a resource that overburdened schools readily can incorporate into effective daily instruction plans. Going by national poverty stats, the majority of those children reside outside of his cherished and privileged demographic. They gain the resource that their families may not utilize and definitely could not if his clever plan were put into effect. Are we to assume that the economically privileged will agree to pay what amounts to a tax to support that large group of underprivileged kids, let alone the working-class adults who listen and watch without the means to lend financial support? The original idea, after all, was to make the resource available to all, irrespective of their economic condition. Carlson's plan would have one of two outcomes: it would make public broadcasting accessible only to the financially privileged or, more likely, it would eliminate it entirely. Despite his Public Broadcasting connections, his rhetoric seems to favor the latter. Given the fact that he's a right-wing pundit, which Rysdall carefully glossed, it hardly is surprising.
I think charging for public radio would be like charging to check out books from a library. How many of us have continued our education through public radio? Let us not forget how many listeners' zipcodes are not reflected because they don't
contribute. I started listening to wbez in 1989,my first year of teaching making $16,000 and wasn't able to contribute then but now am. There may be those of us who contribute generously in 606- zipcodes too, but many more of us who don't and likely can't
I listen regularly to NPR and with an annual income of less than $10,000, I don't have a white- collar job, don't drive a European car, or any car for that matter, and as much as I'd like to, I'm in no position to fund this quality news programming. There are other activities funded or subsidized with federal tax dollars that are less beneficial to me specifically, than Public Radio and most of them have a higher price tag.
Pages
