The FCC regularly auctions and allocates valuable broadcast spectrum. There should be opportunities to raise considerable funds from spectrum purchasers and users, and to redirect to more productive use the funds they already expend under regulatory mandates such as the P.I.O. system. This search for revenue should also expand beyond FCC licensees to include cable franchisees and satellite broadcasters, among others. Satellite broadcasters, for example, are required to set aside expensive bandwidth for public interest uses, but the impact of these investments is negligible; the equivalent revenue would serve the public better if it were directed to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
What can we achieve with this revenue? For a number of reasons, including political practicality, we should construct reform within the system we already have, rather than invent a new one. That means we should direct all or nearly all of the increased funds we get from public property users and other special interests to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in return for systemic reforms within the CPB-funded system.
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created the CPB. The system was founded to promote the public interest amid pervasive commercial media—precisely the mission we need to revive now. The Corporation has contributed to the success of PBS and NPR. Some of its recent experiments, such as Argo, which is intended to fund multimedia local reporting in response to the loss of newspaper jobs, may be promising.
CPB has a record of accountability to Congress and to the public about questions of political bias. Congress has already implemented special funding and governance rules to protect the corporation from politicization—rules that have been reviewed, revised, and argued about for years, but which nonetheless require strengthening. Funding should be removed from the appropriations process to an even greater degree, perhaps by setting up semi-automated flows into an independent trust fund. Governance and appointments to the cpb board must be further depoliticized.
The current CPB is also biased toward mainstream television and radio, particularly television, which receives, by law, three-quarters of its funds. I’ve heard suggestions that new funding should be linked to more pluralistic formulas, including a restructuring of CPB to encompass new digital entrants, such as ProPublica, for example, or local sites like the nonprofit Voice of San Diego—a change that might be signaled by renaming the entity as the Corporation for Public Media. That may be ambitious politically, but it is certainly the right strategic direction. Any new funding regime should be measured by whether or not it will produce more serious, independent, diverse, public-minded reporting.
Any new funds routed through a reformed corporation should come with conditions. One should be that that PBS, NPR, and their member stations have incentives to work across digital media, and to embrace local reporting to a much greater degree than they do now (which is not much, overall; only 478 of the 901 stations airing NPR programming have staff of any kind, and only a fraction of those have a local news staff). The stations should also be given incentives to connect their audiences to other non-profit and commercial media outlets through open systems, just as web aggregators do, in order to strengthen innovators and new entrants.
As Bill Kling, the retiring president of American Public Media, has forcefully pointed out, the current CPB-funded radio and television station system is also hobbled by internal problems. Stations are often badly governed. Colleges and universities control many public stations, and their administrations sometimes milk them for cash while neglecting original news and public affairs. Any new funding routed to this system should be linked to a reforms and incentives that will address public media’s governance failures.

Fabulous article.
Please see my work, I am a broadcast journalist turned activist who specifically targets public interest obligations and license challenges. My film "Broadcast Blues" defines Public Interest Obligations in a way average people can understand it, and my blog http://www.suewilsonreports.com has numerous posts on this topic. I blog for Huffington Post and others as well.
I believe I will be having a panel at Free Press' National Media Reform Conference that will introduce a national, managed, publicized plan to help local communities launch license challenges.
#1 Posted by Sue Wilson, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:05 PM
Excellent analysis. For those interested in this topic, the Report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, www.knightcomm.org, could serve as a useful resource. It steps back a level, in this period of journalistic turmoil, to ask what do communities need in terms of information? In fact the Report, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age, largely helped to frame the FCC Future of Media Inquiry itself. The report is the result of a bipartisan commission of 17 highly regarded people ranging in political persuasions and outlooks from Ted Olson (attorney for Citizens United and former Solicitor General in the George W. Bush Administration) to Benjamin Todd Jealous, President of the NAACP. It supported market solutions for local journalism while at the same time supporting the increased funding of public service media. The latter, it thought, however, needed to improve in its localism, diversity, and interactivity. The Aspen Institute, which produced the Commission and the Report in partnership with the Knight Foundation, is in the process of releasing eight white papers following up the rather general consensus recommendations with specific measures of how to get from here to there. Much more there, plus an opportunity to discuss aspects in the blog and dialogue sections, all at www.knightcomm.org.
Charlie Firestone
Executive Director
Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program
#2 Posted by Charlie Firestone, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 05:36 PM
Steve -
Thanks for taking the time to step back and take a big picture look at the many ways our whole media policy system is shaping journalism right now - and how we could rethink these systems to better serve journalism and democracy.
As we look for models and ideas, there is much we can learn from other countries. Our media ecosystem is as unique as our nation, and we don't want to try to duplicate any one system - like the BBC - but there are still important lessons to learn and pieces we can explore to help foster innovation and protect journalism's independence.
In the coming weeks we'll be releasing a major report on the policies and structure found in 14 other democratic nations that help insulate journalists from the public funds that flow into supporting high quality public media. You can see a summary of that research here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38710467/Crisis-of-Imagination-Summary
Josh Stearns, Free Press and SaveTheNews.org
#3 Posted by Josh Stearns, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 11:07 AM
"journalists carry powerful antibodies to any hint that government might encroach on press freedom"...but do they have any antibodies about Oligarchs encroaching on press freedom? Do they know Plato's view of the role of the state to protect the masses from the few powerful Oligarchs?...who will always serve themselves when given the opening to do so? ...me thinks not...
Meanwhile, the American people are now whipped around by Oligarchs who control everything under the very noses of these "principled" Journos who have antibodies about the government encroaching on press freedom, but conveniently no antibodies about Oligarch shareholders encroaching on every freedom...including the freedom to pump and dump asset markets, fear monger, race bait, and scapegoat...
naming three branches doesn't seem enough...conveniently under-educated all...
#4 Posted by planckbrandt, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 01:10 PM
Knight report is good, but don't forget universities are prone now to control by Oligarchs...we are used and abused by these tax-exempt institutions serving the Oligarch's interests...this story developed by citizen journos paid for by individual small gifts...no corporate media would touch since all the cronies in their whole-system are fingered...
http://spot.us/stories/544-the-investors-club-how-the-university-of-california-regents-spin-public-money-into-private-profit
of course Foundations like Knight are in love with philanthropy as the solution to a weak or failed state... "philanthropic" gifts to universities are just as ideological as BODs in private corporations...
#5 Posted by planckbrandt, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 01:30 PM
Oh, boy!! Government funded news reporting. Or will it be a "license to publish?"
http://lincolnparishnewsonline.wordpress.com/
#6 Posted by Walter Abbott, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 04:03 PM
-With NPR a Rockefeller front
-AP/Reuters a Rothchild front
-FOX a Murdoch RED China cover operation
-the main nets corporate, globalist and
all but openly YOU-genocidal
--------------UH, what more regulation
were you thinking of?
#7 Posted by tiger tim, CJR on Sun 7 Nov 2010 at 06:18 AM
It is sad to see the ostensible luminaries of the press in prostrate posture and supplicating the Airwaves Overlords, as though press freedom (and freedom of association, generally) is something to be doled out by the federal govt.
To thus assume the Feds' right to control, by subsidy, penalty, etc., what is said and how it is said and who says it is to concede to the Feds the freedom of speech (just as the assumption that the IRS rightfully arbitrates how much of your earnings you shall keep is to concede every penny from the start).
But never mind, for our luminaries have informed us that this kind of "extreme" and "anti-government" rationale only makes the govt's job of allocating freedom more difficult. (And besides, who but a heartless extremist would want to "kill off Big Bird, Frontline, and PBS NewsHour, and seriously damage All Things Considered and Morning Edition"?)
But in fact, what keeps a press free and independent is its freedom from govt, and its determination to resist govt control, expose govt encroachment on freedom, and so on. Govt subsidies and other govt-media incest ultimately destroy such freedom and independence. But never mind, for such quaint and archaic truths necessarily render the press "anti-government," and we can't have that!
FCC = Fascist Communication Control. Free the press: abolish the FCC (and the FTC, FDA, DEA, DHS, etc.).
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 8 Jan 2011 at 12:45 AM