Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

ROWLAND: Shave off some ad revenue for public TV

By Willard D. "Wick" Rowland, Special to the Rocky

Published December 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

So, with the 2008 elections over, are we already forgetting our dismay at the quality of political advertising and the system of selling candidates it represents?

Remember all the criticism - the attack ads, character assassinations, half-truths, wedge-issue appeals and outright misrepresentations of candidate biographies and positions?

Most informed observers find the tone and content of political ads and the entire commercialized process to be degrading to the character of our democracy. Then, when they discover the costs, their disappointment increases. Preliminary estimates for the federal portion of the 2008 elections are well over $5 billion and, of that, perhaps two-thirds or more (in excess of $3 billion) went to television and radio advertising.

Political advertising highly inflates the costs of campaigning and distorts the political process by forcing candidates to raise large amounts of money. That, in turn, obligates them either to be wealthy themselves or to depend too much on the financial backing of their private supporters. Meanwhile commercial broadcasters and cable channels profit mightily from the political advertising system, yet they have no obligation to guarantee a forum for civil political discourse.

Some have noted that the broadcasting commercialization of politics is not permitted in most other democracies, and there have been calls for limitations on political ads here. However, legislative and regulatory efforts to reform the U.S. system founder on constitutional considerations.

Despite those constraints there is an avenue of positive support for an aspect of broadcasting that could become a strong counterweight to the commercialized political system. That would be to provide much better funding for public broadcasting's efforts to provide a different form of political information, using a small fraction of the commercial revenues.

Many citizens are familiar with all the national political reporting and analysis by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Likewise many public radio and television stations around the country provide extended forums for state and local candidates to confront one another at length and to put their ideas to substantial debate.

Every election season, Colorado Public Television (KBDI-Channel 12) provides dozens of prime-time hours covering candidates and ballot issues. All of its many weekly public-affairs shows offer a heavy, regular flow of interviews and discussion with candidates and ballot issue proponents or opponents. Additionally, in cooperation with the Rocky Mountain News and CBS4, KBDI produces Colorado Decides, an extended debate series for the federal and major state office candidates in Colorado and the leading statewide initiatives and referenda. Beginning with the primary season in early summer 2008, Colorado Decides produced 18 debates, plus four nights of local coverage of the Democratic National Convention and a three-hour Election Night special newscast covering returns throughout the state.

But, as good as all that programming is, it is but a fraction of what public broadcasting could be doing if it were adequately funded. Public radio and television do much of the heavy lifting in high-quality political coverage, yet they receive none of the political advertising revenues.

Imagine an alternative scenario in which public broadcasting would agree - as part of its noncommercial licensing and federal funding conditions - to provide an even greater amount of political campaign issue programming nationally and locally. A 3 percent tax on the commercial media expenditures for the 2008 federal elections would have provided roughly $100 million, which could have been invested in a public broadcasting political coverage trust fund. With such a resource, public television and radio stations all over the country could greatly expand and improve their debate work.

Ask yourself this: If you are a donor to political campaigns, or if you support the presidential campaign check-off fund, wouldn't you want to see at least some small portion of those funds going to support the improvement and expansion of the one broadcasting venue where the quality of the political discussion rises above the commercial fray?

Willard D. "Wick" Rowland, Ph.D., is president and CEO of Colorado Public Television, KBDI-Channel 12 in Denver.

Comments

  • December 5, 2008

    6:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Why should we continue to fund radio & television stations that cannot survive on their own?

    "Public Radio & Public Television” started out as a good idea but like Public Education it quickly became the refuge of the leftists who openly hate the right. Instead of practicing tolerance and presenting balance they preach animosity and promote a slanted view.

    No more money to Public Radio or Public TV. Period.