PUBLIC BROADCASTING TRUST WOULD REDUCE FEDERAL SUPPORT TO 0

Whenever the topic of government funding for public broadcasting is discussed, the issue too often is framed in an all-or-nothing context. Supporters of public broadcasting who want Congress to continue its multimillion-dollar pledge forever contend that any reduction or outright elimination of those federal dollars is tantamount to being opposed to public broadcasting in general and Big Bird, Mr. Rogers and Garrison Keillor in particular.

In fact, many, if not most, of those inside and outside government who think public broadcasting can exist as well or even better with private financing as it can with continued government subsidies are also supporters of public broadcasting and its programming. Even complaints about the sometimes liberal bent of news and analysis presented by public broadcasting are frequently tempered with acknowledgements of the quality and variety of other programming.

But given the mood of the current Congress and its Republican-led record of reducing government both in scope and in cost, it is apparent to many within the world of public broadcasting who have taken their heads out of the sand that the world of "All Things Considered" and "Masterpiece Theatre" will not come crashing down if Congress reduces or eventually eliminates all funding. This recognition has led some of the major players in public broadcasting to take the initiative to propose a new funding mechanism that retains the "public" in public broadcasting while shifting the burden of financial support to the private sector.

Four groups (Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio, Association of America's Public Television Stations and Public Radio International) have joined to suggest the creation of the Trust for Public Broadcasting, which would be modeled on similar trusts that have been created by Congress for the American Red Cross and the U.S. Olympic Committee.

The trust would be built up with funding both from private donors and government contributions until it reached a level of self-sufficiency, at which time all government donations would end. The four groups estimate the federal subsidy would be reduced to zero by the year 2002 -- coincidentally the same year the GOP would like to have a balanced budget for all of federal government. Government funding for public broadcasting this year was $285 million.

In addition, the public broadcasters propose taking steps toward increased efficiency plus some regulatory changes that would bolster the value and effectiveness of public broadcasting's assets.

Conspicuously absent from the groups that are proposing the trust is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which continues to hold firm to its argument that no new revenue sources could ever replace federal funding. However, the CPB has suggested it would allow its members stations to sell commercial advertising, a move the other groups resist as contrary to the mission of promoting commercial-free education and culture.

The trust idea is one worth exploring, even if the CPB doesn't want to go along right now. Down the road there is little question that federal funding will come to an end for public broadcasting, and the CPB faces the possibility of either benefiting from the trust or having to go entirely on its own as a money-making enterprise to support its programming. To continue to maintain that government subsidies are absolutely necessary -- and that any attempt to reduce or eliminate public funding is an attack on the concept of educational and cultural broadcasting -- is to continue to play the ostrich, head deeply buried under the sand.