Page 44 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Alternat ve Med a n the Un ted States |

Broadcasting Service) and NPR (National Public Radio), both funded by the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which receives money from Con-
gress. Although structured purposefully to be shielded from direct political
influence, over the course of its history funding for public broadcasting has
been subject to political pressures, with congressional members, predomi-
nantly from the Republican party, periodically calling for an end to financial
support. Because of the lobbying power to promote the commercial media
sector in the United States, overall funding for public networks is much less
than that allocated in other industrialized countries. The fact that the funding
does not cover production and ongoing expenses has meant that these net-
works must rely on donations from public and corporate donors. Critics of
the programming content of public broadcasting argue that corporate donors
have undue influence over programming decisions. They charge that they have
all but eliminated the experimental and diverse programming originally envi-
sioned for PBS. Others argue that the lack of relevant programming should be
attributed to the faulty visions of those within the public broadcasting system.
Because of such problems, independent producers and unions have had to
march, petition, and sue to get their voices, shows, and programming agendas
heard on public broadcasting.

arTiCuLaTing ThE nEED For aLTErnaTivEs

Advocates for developing an alternative media system that is more inclusive
and able to accommodate a diverse set of opinions and voices also point to the
regulatory rollbacks of laws that once required commercial media outlets to ful-
fill their public interest mandate. The authority by which all channels operate
requires that they broadcast “in the public interest, convenience and necessity.”
Many argue that that goal, codified into law in 1934, was made irrelevant when
broadcasters claimed that such cartoon fare as The Flintstones and The Jetsons
was “educational.” Community and activist groups who form a major constitu-
ency for alternative media point out that even commercial time, driven osten-
sibly by a “free market,” is often closed to alternative viewpoints, even for those
willing to pay commercial rates. Peace activists and unions have had to take
networks to court to be able to buy standard commercial time for 30-second
spots. The “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ushered in after WWII in an effort to
combat potential dominance of public airwaves by particular parties, has been
eliminated. Public interest groups have argued that these changes led to the pres-
ent media landscape, and they contend that commercial media do not represent
the broader public. They point to the inordinate amount of public space for the
strident pronouncements of ultraconservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill
O’Reilly, among others, and the lack of alternative space for counter agendas and
independent voices. In earlier times the Fairness Doctrine would have required
that “the other side” of an important issue be included, a demand the public can
no longer make. Cable talk show hosts and producers point to the diversity of
their guest lists, but detractors argue that conservative hosts set the agendas and
enjoy a discursive advantage.