Series: The Advocates
Episode: 609
Original Link: https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-7p8tb0xx7m
Video Embed:
Episode Summary:
This episode of The Advocates debated whether Congress should substantially increase federal funding for public broadcasting, as recommended by recent Carnegie Commission and House proposals that would raise public funding severalfold and more tightly centralize program decisions. Roger Fisher, supported by media critic William Henry III and foundation director Eli Evans, argued in favor, contending that non-commercial radio and television serve crucial public purposes: providing educational, cultural, and minority programming that commercial networks are unable or unwilling to produce. Proponents maintained that, with federal support amounting to just a few dollars per person per year, public broadcasting can be a modern “town hall,” democratizing information and creative opportunity, while preserving a balance between diverse local interests and a robust national platform. They argued that, as in the case of libraries and public schools, public support delivers broad social value, and that careful governance can preserve editorial independence without political interference.
In opposition, William Rusher and his witnesses—commercial broadcaster William Poorvu and commentator M. Stanton Evans—countered that expanded federal funding is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous for both economic and constitutional reasons. They questioned whether public broadcasting truly serves an unduplicated function, arguing that commercial broadcasters and emerging technologies (such as cable and videocassettes) already offer increasing diversity and local programming. They warned that government funding risks either politicization and censorship of content, or an unaccountable managerial elite funded by the public purse. Further, the current audience for public television is relatively small and affluent, so increasing its subsidy would effectively tax everyone for the entertainment of a minority. Instead, they called for skepticism about expanding government’s role, suggesting public broadcasters should prove themselves with existing resources before demanding more.
Ultimately, the episode highlighted core tensions: the proper role of public funding in cultural and civic life, the risks and rewards of government involvement in media, and the ongoing balance between public good, private initiative, and technological innovation. Both sides appealed to viewers’ values—whether universal access and diversity justify broader federal support, or if American society should rely increasingly on markets and user choice for its informational and cultural programming.
