I am a PBS fan, but I have to agree with columnist George Will, who wrote Friday on The Washington Post website that the government needs to rethink its spending on TV and radio broadcasting.
Will wants the government to kill it. Can’t you just see Elon Musk’s puppies going into PBS and NPR and firing everybody? This probably hasn’t happened because public broadcasting is very small potatoes in the federal budget, but also because viewers and listeners would rightly raise the roof about it.
I have an alternative solution to getting rid of public broadcasting — especially PBS, which airs some really good shows.
My favorite, from a few years ago, was the British series “Victoria,” about their 19th century queen. Especially the episode when the queen stuck up for victims of the Irish potato famine, which as you can guess resonated with me.
That episode is the only time in my life that I cursed Protestants. Unfortunately, I did it in front of my Presbyterian wife, who was watching the show with me. She was not amused, but I got a great column out of it.
PBS has plenty of other great stuff. The Ken Burns series on country music was outstanding — it had wonderful stories about Jimmie Rodgers and Hank Williams.
Mary Ann watches some of the network’s cooking shows, too, along with other stuff. But if we are serious about cutting federal spending, it is fair to ask, as Will does, why public broadcasting got $535 million in government funding last year when there are so many alternatives on TV, radio and the internet.
Back when the government got into broadcasting, in 1970, there really weren’t many media options. That simply is not the case today.
So my idea is this: The government should sell PBS and NPR to a trusted owner who will agree to keep a similar programming format — but who will be able to sell some advertising time to bring in money, to either break even or earn a profit.
I can hear it already — ugh, advertising! I get it. But if the alternative is losing PBS, then its fans ought to accept the tradeoff.
This no-advertising mindset is all over the place. About twice a year, I get emails from the Wikipedia website asking for a contribution. If everyone who used the site gave $3, they say, they would hit their fundraising goal in an hour.
Wikipedia is proud of not accepting ads so that its allegiance can’t be bought. My thinking is, why are they ignoring this money? Just accept ads that you like, or ads from non-profits, or non-controversial ads. You don’t have to let everybody advertise.
They also could charge a ridiculously low subscription fee, like $3 or $5 per year. Who would not pay that?
And when the inevitable criticism arises, just invite those who dislike the new policy to use some other online encyclopedia. I’d be shocked if anything on the internet is as comprehensive as Wikipedia.
Netflix is another good example. When they got into streaming online, the CEO swore there would never be any advertising. Apparently he forgot that as a publicly traded company, he has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. So guess who runs ads now on its cheapest subscription plan?
Everybody thinks everything on the internet should be free. I run into this all the time when people complain about stories on the Enterprise-Journal website that are available only for subscribers.
What’s my game plan supposed to be — tell employees to work for nothing?
Our online subscriptions are way less expensive than delivery of the printed newspaper. That’s because there are no printing or mailing costs for the internet. But there are other costs, specifically for the people who produce the stories, photos and ads.
Will, with his usual sense of humor, compared PBS and NPR to the human appendix: “purposeless and susceptible to unhealthy episodes.” He also notes their defenders support subsidies because its shows appeal to the refined citizenry among us.
Well, refined citizens spend money, too. Let a few tasteful ads show them the way.
