The system should also be organized to reinforce the existing firewall between government funding and journalism. Such firewalls are a daunting challenge, but they can be managed. Newspaper publishers, in their day, insulated their newsrooms from pressure from advertisers, for the most part; university presidents insulate their faculty from pressure from donors, for the most part. When they fail they are often exposed (typically by journalists) and held accountable. Conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts are inherent to professional activity in a free-market economy; law, medicine, accounting, and science all struggle with the problem. There is, in any event, no inherent moral difference between corporate advertising dollars and government dollars; both flow from institutions whose power over citizens journalists should be seeking to describe and challenge.
I’ve even heard that you, Steve, have thought aloud with colleagues about a rule requiring that no recipient of expanded government funding for public media could receive such funds if the revenue would amount to more than 15 percent of the recipient’s total budget. That is a terrific idea, assuming some scheme for grandfathering CPB-funded stations can be put together. In their heyday, newspaper publishers and television networks retained independence in part because revenue sources were diverse and no one category created existential risk.
Funds reallocated to CPB should also be tied to reforms designed to open up the public media system to make it more diverse and more inclusive. Open platforms, open technology, and open access should be guiding aspirations, too. If new funds are passed through CPB, Congress should insist on the creation of at least one new funding stream accessible by outsiders to the legacy PBS and public radio system. The Waldman Fifteen Percent Rule, as we will henceforth think of it, could be particularly helpful in that project.
PBS is a better-than-average but flawed government institution with some outstanding flagship properties, including Frontline and PBS NewsHour in the journalism space. There are opportunities to use CPB reforms to improve it, although we shouldn’t raise our expectations too high. Public radio, on the other hand, which is independently chartered and not beholden to Congress or any other government body, has proven itself as the indispensable center of professional journalism and public affairs programming in the era of shrinking newspapers. Some specific effort should therefore be undertaken to bolster NPR and its member stations, as well as NPR’s quasi-rival, American Public Media.
NPR receives less than 2 percent of its annual budget from the CPB or other federal grantmakers. Even when indirect program fees flowing to NPR from member stations are considered, less than 10 percent of CPB’s funds flow through to the country’s dominant public radio network. The need to raise funds from diverse sources, including listeners, strengthens the NPR system’s journalism and other content by forcing it to account for audience preferences and to avoid bias. Even so, more funding routed through CPB to the public radio system would strengthen the country’s democracy, particularly if the new funds were tied to incentives to expand the radio system’s web publishing and local reporting.
The producers and anchors on public radio should aspire to be the conveners of a reliable, fact-based, calm, inclusive, media space for nonpartisan reporting and debate about the issues that matter, without sensation or the distorting pursuit of commercial reward. Still, like all centrist, successful cultural institutions, public radio will have to challenge its own complacency and raise the level of its diversity. Saturday Night Live, we can hope, will continue to help to keep its producers honest. The Alec Baldwin “Schweddy Balls” send-ups of NPR are funny and dead-on. I’ve been impressed by Vivian Schiller’s leadership of NPR, but I thought the decision to fire commentator Juan Williams over the comments he made on Fox News was mistaken. Fox thrives on demagogic identity politics, meanwhile, so it is hardly surprising that it has seized on the firing to stir up Republican resistance to public media.

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