Who pays for public radio and what is their agenda?

By THOMAS J. SHEPSTONE

Russ Johansen’s recent guest editorial on free speech (or the lack of it) suggests we “follow the money” to know who we are listening to. I agree. We might start by examining who pays for public radio and their agendas.

Public radio and public television both use monies extorted from taxpayers who, it is safe too say, would probably never vote to make those expenditures freely. WJFF reportedly got $170,000/year of taxpayer funds in 2001, for example. Public stations also receive funding from the same business sponsors they criticize commercial stations for using. They get it, too, from a host of special interest leftist groups like Pacifica Radio, which enjoys defending Fidel Castro.

When we listen to public radio what we get, in fact, is anything but “grassroots.” If it were truly grassroots it would have commercial support because advertisers put their dollars where the people are listening. Public radio and public television demand government and special interest support precisely because they do not enjoy widespread popularity or large audiences. They, in fact, aim to deliver unpopular viewpoints. They have that right. It is the essence of America. Nonetheless, getting the public to pay for it does not make their message any more pure.

A free market of competing ideas is what we all desire. Fortunately, we live in a nation where that is guaranteed by our Constitution. It doesn’t happen, however, without a capitalist system, where the people with the ideas are free to compete for attention by getting the most commercial sponsors. This system does allow the combination of media into giants like the Washington Post/Newsweek empire, which I trust not at all. Nevertheless, it also provides for spunky upstarts like The River Reporter (with whom I often disagree but, nonetheless, enjoy). It has allowed talk radio to flourish, cable news to appear everywhere, new forms of news such as the internet newsletters and a Washington Times to balance the Washington Post.

Say what you want about the media, and I am very critical, but there are more news outlets today than ever. There are more choices and viewpoints. There is more free speech—much more than any of us can possibly absorb. We can get our news any way we like it today, from red, white and blue to just plain red. This is because of our free markets, not in spite of them. Try finding this free speech in any Marxist state of the type Pete Seeger and friends would have us live under. This member of the leftover left once sang songs honoring Ho Chi Minh. Is the Vietnam press of today the model he would give us?

You won’t, of course, find a free press in any Marxist state, because the first thing all socialists try to do is control the message by eliminating the free press and substituting a public one free of commercial or any private influence. They even do it in America when given the opportunity. We see it in attempts by colleges to enact speech codes and shout down conservative speakers. HUD officials tried, during the Clinton administration; to prosecute housing project opponents for speeches they made soliciting others of similar views. There are more and more laws regarding “hate speech,” which is a slippery slope if there ever was one.

The left, in fact, is all too often against free speech—unless, of course, it is to challenge America—then they are fierce defenders of the free press. Nevertheless, they are part of America. Their special interest viewpoint is as valuable as anyone’s. It deserves to be spoken using whatever medium they choose. Just don’t pretend it is the only valid expression of the public interest. More importantly, please don’t ask me to pay for it. I’ll pay to share those opinions with which I agree. That is grassroots America.

[Thomas J. Shepstone is a regional planner from Honesdale, PA.]